Women's Role in Church
Leadership and Decision Making

May women serve as preachers
or lead in church worship assemblies? May they be church officers, such as
elders, bishops, pastors, or deacons? Are women equally as important as men, or do the Scriptures
demean women? May women be Bible teachers?

Does the Bible teach that women
may have leadership roles over men, or should they be subject in
submission to the authority of men? May women participate equally with men in
church decision-making "business" meetings?

Introduction:
The purpose of these studies is to examine Bible teaching about the
role of women in church leadership and decision making.

Consider some changes that have occurred in church leadership roles
in recent years.

* Some believe that women should be allowed to preach or lead prayer
or singing in public worship assemblies.

* Some claim that women should be allowed to serve as elders/bishops
or deacons.

* Some claim that women should be allowed to attend and speak in
church business or decision-making meetings. Some claim women should
have equal voice with men in such meetings.

* Some claim that churches must have "congregational
meetings" in which all members, including women, discuss and make
decisions. Some claim that such meetings must ratify or reject decisions
made by the elders or men.

The purpose of this study is to examine the teaching of the New
Testament about the role of women in such activities of church
leadership and decision making.

No human authority should be obeyed if it instructs us to disobey
God.

As we discuss various relationships involving people exercising authority
over other people, the following limitation must always be understood:

Acts 5:28,29,40-42 - God had commanded
the apostles to teach about Jesus, but rulers commanded them not to
teach. Obedience to the rulers would constitutes disobedience to God, so the
apostles obeyed God rather than men. The same rule would apply to any man-made
decision that tells us to disobey God.

Note that the passage makes an exception, not for the case where the one possessing
authoritycommits some sin, but for the case where the one
under authority would sin if they obeyed the human authority.
"We (the ones under authority) must obey God..."
[Cf. Acts 4:18-20; Daniel 3:13-18; 6:3-16]

In no case does the passage give people under authority the freedom to do
just whatever they choose or even what they think is wisest or
best. We may disobey God-ordained human authorities only when that is
necessary to obey God's authority. In no case are we permitted to
refuse to obey authorities just so we can follow our human preference or
strongly held opinion.

This limitation on human authority must always be remembered as we discuss
various relationships in which people exercise authority over other people.

I. Controversy about Male Leadership

A. Power Struggles Are Well-Known in the Scriptures.

Conflicts between nations and within governments often result from
power struggles: people want to take power that others possess. The same
is often true in businesses, schools, families, and other organizations.

The Bible contains many examples of power struggles in general.

Numbers 16 - Korah, Dathan, and Abiram led a revolt against Moses and
Aaron's leadership.

Women have often caused tragedies by taking leadership over men.

1 Kings 21 - Jezebel master-minded the death of Naboth so Ahab could take his
vineyard.

2 Kings 11 - Athaliah killed the royal seed and ruled Israel for several
years.

The Bible also records the lives of many godly women. The point is not that
women are always wrong nor that men should ignore women's advice.
Nevertheless, many power struggles throughout history have resulted when women
sought to lead men instead of following them.

B. The Feminist Movement Promotes Roles for Women as Church Leaders.

Many quotations prove this to be a feminist goal.

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest
stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation"
- Elizabeth Cady Stanton (via "Why Women Need Freedom
from Religion").

"Organized religion always has been and remains the
greatest enemy of women's rights ... Why is there a
religion-fostered war against women's rights? Because the
bible is a handbook for the subjugation of women. The bible
establishes woman's inferior status ... and God-ordained
master/servant relationship to man" - Annie L. Gaylor,
"Why Women Need Freedom From Religion."

"The scriptures are unredeemably sexist" - Ann
Ware, Assoc. Dir. of the National Council of Churches
Commission on Faith and Order (via Pulpit Helps,
11/82).

"We urge the [National Council of Churches] to ... [t]ake
the lead in uniting women of all denominations and religious
groups to work together to support efforts to recognize the
right of women to be ordained in religious bodies where that
right is still denied ... [W]e demand that the seminaries
... actively recruit, employ and justly promote women
theologians ... We demand that ... religious groups no
longer have legal sanction to discriminate on the basis of
sex" - Revolution, pp. 17,18.

The feminist Evangelical Women's Caucus says they "urge all churches
to grant to women ... ordination." They want feminists to work within the
churches and "share your concerns subtly" - via "How Are the
Churches Being Indoctrinated with Secular Feminism???."

Sadly, many examples show that, even churches that once were considered sound
or even "conservative" are moving in the direction of allowing women
to serve as preachers or elders, to lead in other worship activities in which
men participate, to speak out in congregational worship assemblies, or to attend and
speak in church decision-making meetings. Others argue that the whole church,
including women, should meet to discuss and make decisions. Some claim the
elders or men cannot make decisions without submitting them to the whole congregation
for its agreement.

The parallels to feminism are too obvious to be coincidental. If the feminist
movement had never arisen, and if denominations had not begun giving increased
authority to women, surely we would not be facing such calls for increased
leadership by women.

So what does God's word teach about church leadership and decision making?
Let us start by examining various leadership and submission relationships.

II. Bible Roles that Involve Submission

In order to provide leadership in various relationships, God's word
authorizes leadership roles. Note some terms used to describe these
leadership/submission roles:

A. "Submit,"
"Subject"

The word, as used in these contexts, refers to a relationship in which one
person(s) has authority over another. The one in authority has the right to make
decisions or rules that the one in subjection is expected to follow. This word
is used to refer to:

Subjection of people, the church, etc., to God and Christ

James 4:7 - Submit to God, but resist the devil.

Hebrews 12:9 - We should be subject to the Father of
spirits. The context shows that He chastens us to teach us
righteousness, which implies that we won't always like His decisions.

Romans 8:7 - Subjection refers to submitting to God's law.

1 Corinthians 15:27,28 - All things are made subject to Christ in
that they submit to His reign (v25). Note that the word even includes
involuntary submission of Jesus' enemies.

Ephesians 1:22 - The Father "put all things under"
Jesus' feet and gave Him to be head over all things to the church,
which is His body. This concludes an extended description of Jesus'
position of authority and power (vv 19-23).

Philippians 3:21 - Jesus is able to subdue all things to
Himself.

[Romans 10:3; 1 Peter 3:22; 2 Corinthians 9:13]

Submission of citizens to civil government

Romans 13:1-5 - Be subject to governing authorities
(vv 1,5), rather than withstanding or resisting them (vv 2,3). Those who
resist do evil (v4) and bring judgment on themselves (v2).

Titus 3:1 - Be subject to rulers and authorities, to
obey.

1 Peter 2:13,14 - Submit to "every" ordinances of
kings and governors. Rulers punish evildoers and praise those who do
good. So failure to submit is doing evil.

Obedience of servants to masters

Titus 2:9 - The word for "submission" is used to teach
servants to be obedient to their masters, well pleasing in all
things.

Subjection of children to parents

Hebrews 12:9 - Fathers chastise children, so we respect them. This
is compared to our subjection to the Father of spirits.

1 Timothy 3:4 - An elder must "rule" well his own house
having his children in submission with all reverence.

[Luke 2:51]

Subjection of the earth to man

Genesis 1:26-28 - At creation God gave man "dominion"
over the animals, birds, fish, and the earth. He instructed man to subdue
the earth.

Hebrews 2:5-8 - This principle is repeated in Psalms 8:4-6, which is
quoted here. God set man over the works of His hands and put all things
in subjection under his feet. So subjection refers to
submitting to "dominion."

peitho

This also means to be persuaded, to listen to, to obey. It is related
to the term for faith and is often translated trust, believe, be
persuaded, etc.

Obedience to God, Jesus, the truth

Romans 2:8 - Some obey not the truth but obey
unrighteousness

Galatians 3:1; 5:7 - Some were misled and did not obey
the truth

Obedience of animals to humans

James 3:3 - We put bits in horses mouths so they will obey
us.

Obedience of Christians to elders

Hebrews 13:17 - Obey those who rule over you and be submissive.

C. Headship

This word is used literally for the head of a man or animal, which makes
decisions and gives directions to the body. In relationships of people it is
used to refer to:

Christ as head of the church

Ephesians 1:22; 5:23 - The Father gave Jesus to be head
over all things to the church, which is His body. These verses use both
"head" and "submit" in the same sentence to refer to
the same relationship. The church is the body in the sense that it must
follow the decisions and directions given by the head.

Colossians 1:18 - He is the head of the body, the
church ... that in all things He may have the preeminence. So headship
refers to preeminence.

[Ephesians 4:15; Colossians 2:19]

Christ as head over other authority

Colossians 2:10 - He is the head of all principality
and power (NKJV footnote: rule and authority). This refers to the
different levels of authority that exist. Some people have power over
other people (rulers over citizens, parents over children, etc.). But
the one with the highest authority over all other rulers is Christ. He
has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). He is King of
kings and Lord of lords.

This point is also made in the context of Eph 1:19-23.

Husband as head over his wife

Ephesians 5:23 - The husband is the head of the wife as
Christ is the head of the church.

1 Corinthians 11:3 - The head of
every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man.

These terms define and illustrate the concept of submission to authority.

D. "Rule"

This word, in the passages that interest us for this study, means to "be
over, to superintend, preside over." It is used for:

A father over his children

1 Timothy 3:4,12 - Elders and deacons must rule their children,
having them in subjection.

A man over his household

1 Timothy 3:4,5,12 - Elders and deacons must rule well their own
household

Elders over the church

1 Timothy 5:17 - Elders who rule well should be counted worthy of double
honor.

[1 Thess. 5:12; Rom. 12:8]

Note that everyone is subject to someone else. The fact that we must submit
to others does not make us less valued or important as people. No people are
free to do just whatever they want to do. We must all learn to submit to
authority.

III. The Husband as Head of the Home

Just as decisions must be made in the church, so decisions must be made
in the home so it can function as God authorized. While there may be
differences between church and home, we will see that there are definite
similarities. To help us understand decision-making in the church, note
first the following passages that teach men to make decisions for the
family:

Genesis 1-3

Genesis 1:26-28

God created man, male and female, in his own image and gave them
dominion over the animals and the earth. Note that man and woman were
both created in God's image, both possess authority (over the animals,
earth, etc.), and both are subject to authority (of God). To teach that
a woman should submit to her husband does not belittle her importance,
nor does it deny that she does possess some authority.

Genesis 2:18-24

The man was created first, and woman was created from man to be his
helper (vv 18,20).

Everything God made was "very good" for the purpose for
which He made it (1:31). Like all of God's creatures, man and woman
were each given the nature that suits the job for which they were
created. Man was created to be the leader, so he has a nature suited to
that job. Woman was created to be man's helper and follower, so she
was given a nature suited to her job. By nature she is suited to be man's
follower, not his leader.

Women do have leadership abilities, since they should exercise
authority over children, animals, and perhaps other women. And degrees
of ability vary from person to person. But in general a woman is suited
for following a man, not leading a man.

To believe that women should lead men is to misunderstand the basic
creation of woman.

Genesis 3:1-19

The serpent tempted the woman and she sinned. She added to this sin
by leading her husband to sin (v6). As a result, God punished everyone
involved.

V16 - Part of woman's punishment was that her husband would
"rule" over her. So woman must submit to
her husband's rule for two reasons: (1) woman was created to be man's
helper, not his leader, and (2) part of the consequence of sin was that
her husband would rule over her.

Observations

The first sin involved a woman leaving her proper role as a helper
and leading her husband instead of following him!

She should never have so acted, both because God had forbidden it,
and because she had not consulted her husband's will. She made the
decision and acted without his authority. Then she urged him to follow
her decision.

Adam sinned in improperly following the leadership of his wife.

Note v17 - Man was punished, not just because he ate the
forbidden fruit, but also because he "heeded the voice" of his
wife. He "hearkened unto" her voice (KJV, ASV). Adam should
have rebuked Eve, both for disobeying God and for acting without his
authority. Instead, he allowed her to take the lead. As a result God
punished the man, both for eating the fruit, and for following his wife
in a decision he knew was wrong.

Because the woman sinned in taking the decision-making role to
herself, her punishment included restrictions on her role in
decision-making - v16.

Woman's punishment was appropriate to her sin.She had failed to
follow her husband's lead, then she led him to follow her into sin. So her
punishment included that she must submit to her husband's rule.

Even before the sin, the woman had been instructed to have children (1:28),
the man had been instructed to work (2:15), and the woman had been assigned the
role of follower. In a paradise, all these acts would have been pleasant and
"very good" (1:31). The punishment consisted of the fact that, in a
sin-cursed world, all these acts would now require hardship, frustration,
difficulty, and even pain. In particular, conflict of wills and difficult
circumstances would make it hard for woman to submit to her husband's rule.
This was the consequence of the sin.

Yes, it is hard for woman to submit to man, just as it is hard for man to
provide family income. Yet we must not set aside God's decreed punishments
because they cause hardship. Men ought to make decisions fairly, yet there will
still be times when submission is hard for women. We must not allow the hardship
of women's role to lead us to deny or undermine their responsibility to submit
to men.

1 Timothy 3:4,12

1 Tim. 3:4,5 says an elder must rule his own house well, having his
children in submission with all reverence. Likewise v12 says deacons must
rule their children and their own houses well. Other translations read:
"one who manages his own household well" (NASB, RSV),
"manage his own family well" (NIV).

Note that, while children are specifically mentioned, yet the husband
must "rule" his whole "house," including his wife. If
a man's wife persists in disobeying him, she is not in subjection.

But the passage discusses the ability of the husband
(elder or deacon) to demonstrate the kind of leadership needed in the
church (v5). So having ones wife in subjection requires that the husband
lead his wife and children wisely and well.

Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18,19

Wives should submit to their own husbands as to the Lord, for
the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church.
The wife should be subject to her own husband in everything as the church is
subject to Christ, and she should respect her husband (Ephesians 5:22-24,33).
The same is taught in Colossians 3:18.

However, husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave
Himself for it. They should love their wives as their own bodies, which they
nourish and cherish (Ephesians 5:25-29,33). They should love their wives and not
be bitter against them (Colossians 3:19).

The terms "submit," "subjection" and
"head" require obedience to authority, as in other authority
relations we have studied.

These same contexts discuss various authority relations, often using
similar terms.

In Ephesians

5:22-24,33 - Wives must submit to husbands and the church must
submit to Christ.

6:1-4 - Children must obey and honor parents.

6:5-9 - Servants must obey masters, doing service with good will
"as to the Lord."

In Colossians

3:18 - Wives submit to your husbands

3:20 - Children obey your parents

3:22 - Servants obey in all things your masters according to the
flesh.

So, the wife should obey the decisions of her husband like a body
should obey its head, like the church should obey Christ, like servants
should obey masters, etc. She has no more right to reject his decisions
or to insist that he accept her will than do people in these other
relations.

Other important expressions used

To make sure there is no doubt about what submission requires of
women, other expressions in the contexts establish the meaning.

As the church is subject to Christ

Ephesians 5:22 - Submit "as to the Lord."

Ephesians 5:23 - Husband is head of the wife "as
also Christ is the head of head church."

Ephesians 5:24 - "Just as the church is subject
to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands."

This shows that women should submit to their husbands in the same
sense that we must all submit to God and Christ. This is how God
Himself explains women's subjection.

"In everything" (Ephesians 5:24).

The body has no right to reject instructions of the head, so the church has
no right to ignore instructions of Christ. Likewise, the wife should submit to
her husband "in everything." She may not pick and choose. She may not
set aside certain areas of her life and say the man cannot make decisions in
those areas. She may not tell him that he must get her approval or that she must
be allowed to have equal say. She must be subject "in everything" as
the church is to Christ. The only exception is Acts 5:29.

Titus 2:4,5

Young women must be taught to be "obedient to their
own husbands" (NKJV, KJV). Other translations say: "being in
subjection to their own husbands" or "subject to" (NASB,
NIV) or "submissive to" (RSV). This is the same word used in v9
that servants should be "obedient" to their masters, and in 3:1
that citizens should be subject to rulers.

Note: "That the word of God may not be blasphemed." When
women in the church do not act as they should in the home, people are
caused to speak against God and His word.

1 Peter 3:1-7

Wives should be submissive to their own husbands that, even if
some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of
their wives. The context similarly commands citizens to submit rulers (2:13,14)
and servants to submit to masters (2:18).

Submission is required even when leaders misuse their authority.

Women and servants (2:18) are expressly instructed not to justify
disobeying their leaders on the grounds that the leaders are disobeying
God. In particular, wives must not justify rebelling by claiming their
husbands have misused their authority. Instead, the passage says that
the leader's disobedience to God is just more reason to obey him, so
you can set a good example for him and may even convert him.

A meek and quiet woman is "very precious" in the sight of
God.

Modern society says women should be self-assertive, yet that is the
opposite of meekness. The loud, boisterous, domineering spirit is
clearly forbidden.

Yet meekness is not a sign of weakness of character, for it takes a
strong person to submit respectfully to others. Nor does quietness mean
she never has anything to say. All Christians are commanded to lead a
quiet life, but this does not mean we never speak (1 Thess. 4:11; 2
Thess. 3:12). Likewise, a godly wife should be meek and quiet; yet the
husband should honestly evaluate her views, provided she expresses them
respectfully.

Old Testament examples of proper submission

Peter says to imitate godly women in the past who were modest and
submissive to their husbands, specifically Sarah. Sarah was beautiful
and influential, yet she was modest and submissive. She demonstrates
that women need not be plain or shallow to be modest, meek, and quiet.

Note that she "obeyed" her husband even to
the point of calling him "lord" (Gen. 18:12).

Husbands must honor and seek to understand their wives.

God not only tells the woman to submit, He also warns the husband to love his
wife to the point of understanding her needs. Too many husbands think they get
to do what they want without regard for the wife's needs or interests. When a
husband thinks he does not have to respect his wife's needs, he will not only
have an unhappy wife, but God will not even hear his prayers!

Further, the husband must honor his wife as the weaker vessel. He
"honors" her by respecting, praising, appreciating, and valuing her.
God views her as "precious" (v4). The husband must cherish her as his
own body and as the Lord does the church (Eph. 5:28-30). He should praise a
worthy wife for her goodness (Prov. 31:28-31). One who finds a wife finds a good
thing and obtains favor of the Lord (Prov. 18:22; 19:14).

Finally, the husband should realize the wife is a joint-heir of the grace of
God (cf. Gal. 3:28). She will be saved by the same Savior, according to the same
gospel, with the same eternal reward. Men and women have different roles in the
home and in the church, but this does not in any way mean the man is more
important or will receive a greater reward. He should not treat his wife as
spiritually inferior or less important than him. Instead, man and wife should
help one another serve God so both can receive eternal life.

[1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:12-14]

Observations and Conclusions Based on the Scriptures

1. The leader (man) is responsible to make final decisions. All
followers (family members) should submit to his decisions.

Other family members may not disregard the husband's will, nor may
they seek to bind their decisions on him. When he believes necessary, he
has the right to change or annul their decisions or to instruct them to
make different decisions, but not vice versa. All this has been
emphasized repeatedly in our study by the terms "submit" (or
"be subject"), "obey," and "head."

2. Followers (family members) may refuse to obey the leader's
decisions only when obedience to the leader requires disobedience to
God.

Acts 5:29 - We must obey God rather than man. Remember that the
passage does not make an exception for the case where the one possessing
authoritycommitted some sin, but for the case
where the one under authority would sin if they obeyed the
human authority. "

3. Leaders (men) should consider the well being of the followers
(family) and make decisions in love for the good of all.

Consider Bible instructions about love

Matthew 22:36-40 - The greatest two commands, including loving our
neighbor as ourselves, must motivate our conduct in all other commands,
including our use of authority.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 - Love teaches us to be, not proud nor
selfish, but patient. God gives us authority, not to promote our own
selfish ambitions, but to serve others and please God.

1 Peter 3:7 - The command to understand the wife requires the
husband to make decisions based on putting himself in the wife's place
and considering her needs, not just to please himself.

Matthew 7:12 - As in all other relationships, leaders should treat
other people the way they would want to be treated.

This does not mean leaders should do whatever the followers tell them
to do. That would turn the followers into the leaders! The leaders
should make the decisions, but they should do so based on what is best
for the people they lead.

Consider the example of Jesus

The Bible upholds Jesus as the ideal leader we should imitate, so
consider His example.

Philippians 2:2-8 - Love (v2) teaches us not to act from selfish
ambition or conceit but to consider others to be more important than we
are (v3). Pursue their interests as well as our own (v4). Jesus
possessed ultimate power; but like Him, leaders should sacrifice our own
will for the good of others (vv 5-8).

Ephesians 5:22-29 - Men should love their wives as Christ loved the
church and as a man loves his own body. Christ has authority over the
church, but He used His authority in love to the point of giving His
life for the church [John 15:12,13]. Likewise, a man would not neglect
his body, so he should not neglect his wife but nourish
and cherish her.

No man has the right to make decisions without regard to the well
being of his wife. And no man has the right to emphasize his own needs
and desires above those of his wife. To do so would be a selfish,
unloving abuse of authority. In short, it would be sinful.

In this sense, the man's authority is not a privilege but a
responsibility. Men must put the well being of their followers ahead of
their personal desires. Followers must still abide by the decisions of
those in authority, even when they don't like the decisions. But to
please God, those with authority must act in love.

Ephesians 5:28,29 - Husbands should love their wives like they
nourish and cherish their own bodies. But doesn't your body tell the
head when it's hungry or tired or hurt or cold? How can the head know
what the body needs, if it ignores the body's communication? So how
can a husband provide for his wife if doesn't listen to her?

1 Timothy 5:8 - If a man will not provide for his household, he is
worse than an unbeliever. But how can a man care for his wife if he won't
listen to find out what she needs? One of the biggest mistakes leaders
make is assuming we know what other people need without asking them.

1 Peter 3:7 - The husband should treat his wife with understanding.
But no man is a mind reader. How can a man understand a woman, if he won't
listen to her (1 Cor. 2:11)?

Matthew 7:12 - Love leads us to put ourselves in other people's
place and treat them the way we believe we ought to be treated in their
place. Often a man will make decisions that his family dislikes without
consulting them. But let that man's supervisors do the same to him,
and listen to him scream! We should learn to treat others the way we
want to be treated.

[Matt. 23:4; Rom. 2:1,2,21-24; Phil. 2:3-8; Rom. 12:3,16]

Jesus' example should teach us to consider the views of others.

Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands should love their wives as Christ loved
the church. Does Jesus consider the needs of the church? Does he allow
the church to communicate its needs?

Matthew 7:7-11 - He said to ask, and we shall receive. Our Father
considers our requests and gives what we need. This is what prayer is
all about.

God does not always give exactly what we asked for, but He does give
what we need. This is the example human leaders should follow. The point
is that God does listen, and our requests often change the course of
subsequent events. How can we as human leaders do less?

[Zech. 13:9; James 5:16-18; Phil. 4:6]

Good decisions often require advice and consultation with others.

James 1:19 - Every man should be swift to hear, slow to speak.
People in authority often make poor decisions simply because they aren't
willing to listen to other views.

Genesis 2:18 - Specifically, God created woman to be man's
helper. She helps in many ways, one of which may be by giving good
advice.

Just because a man should consider advice from others, does not mean
he is always obligated to follow it. Not all advice is good advice. A
leader must evaluate the input, especially considering the reasons
people offer for their views. Then he must apply the standards of love,
God's word, and the example of Jesus to objectively decide what he
sincerely believes to be the best decision. Then the family must follow
the decisions made - that is the nature of authority.

5. The right to make decisions authorizes the leader (man) to decide
how he will consult others and when and where he will make decisions.

We have seen that the man often should consult his family, but
nothing inherently requires him to consult them in any particular way,
time, or place. He may choose to discuss with them one by one, in small
groups, or all together in a group. The right to lead is the right to
decide how best to make a decision, subject to God's law.

In particular, the man is not required to make each decision in the
presence of the family. Often a leader can make the best decisions when
he is alone without the pressure of other people's presence. Then he
reveals the decision to the group.

The right to make decisions inherently includes the right to decide
when and where you will make them! The followers do not have the right
to dictate when, where, or how you decide.

6. The leader's (man's) decisions do not need the followers'
ratification.

They family has no right to veto, annul, override, or refuse to
follow the husband's decisions (except as in Acts 5:29). This
conclusion is inherent in the nature of authority and necessarily
follows from all the Scriptures we have studied.

Every home has times of conflict when not everyone agrees regarding
decisions. Sometimes, regardless of what is decided, someone will be
dissatisfied. We naturally think our views are the best, so we think
others should agree with us if they would just be reasonable. So,
whenever someone makes a decision we don't like, we naturally tend to
think they were unreasonable!

But in order for the family to function despite such conflicts,
someone must have the power to make decisions and insist those decisions
be followed. The main point of authority is that it enables the making
of necessary decisions, even when people disagree.

It necessarily follows that authority means the leader may make
decisions even when some members disagree. If members of the group may
override or refuse to follow decisions, the whole purpose of authority
is defeated.

But how the decision was reached is a matter of judgment. We may
disagree with a decision, but that does not mean the one in authority
sinned, unless we can prove that they violated specific Scripture
- not just that they violated our wishes or even our opinions about
Scripture.

7. This authority of men over wives includes church decisions and
activities.

Note: "in everything" (Ephesians 5:24). Wouldn't this
include in the church?

If men may not make binding decisions in the church without the agreement and
approval of their wives, then wouldn't that mean that the church is one area
in which women do not need to submit to their husbands? The view that men cannot
enforce their decisions on the church without the approval/ratification of the
group (including the women) necessarily constitutes a denial of husbands'
authority over their own wives.

If the women in the church may nullify or refuse to follow the men's
decisions, then that would mean the wives may refuse to submit to their husbands'
authority. How can such a view be harmonized with the Bible teaching about the
authority of husbands? So even without consulting passages that specifically
discuss the church, we can conclude that wives must submit to the authority of
their husbands in church decisions.

And further, all the above points are important principles of good leadership
in essentially any leadership role. The same principles should apply for
husbands leading wives, parents leading children, civil rulers leading citizens,
and employers leading employees. So why should anyone think these principles do
not apply in church leadership? In fact, it would take major, specific evidence
for us to conclude that these principles do not apply in the church.

IV. The Value of Women in Their Scriptural Roles

God's word honors and values women for their work as highly as it does
men for their work.

Spiritual Roles of Women in General

Women are joint heirs of eternal life equally with men.

1 Peter 3:7 - Husbands should honor their wives as heirs together of
the grace of life.

Galatians 3:26-29 - In Christ Jew and Greek are one, slaves and
freemen are one, and male and female are one. This does not say these
people all have the same authority. Do slaves have the same authority as
freemen? The context is discussing, not who possesses authority, but who
can be children of God (vv 26,27) and heirs according to the promise to
Abraham (v29).

Women in the Bible were valued for their important spiritual work.

* Luke 1:26-56 - Mary was honored to be Jesus' mother. But Jesus had
no earthly father.

* Luke 10:38-42 - Mary and Martha were two of Jesus' closest
disciples.

* Matthew 27:55,56; Luke 8:2,3 - Several other women followed and
provided for Jesus.

* 1 Peter 3:5,6; Heb. 11:11,31 - Several godly women from the Old
Testament are expressly upheld as good examples for New Testament women:
Sarah, Rahab, Deborah, Ruth, Esther, etc.

* 1 Timothy 5, Titus 2 and other passages expressly list good works
that women can do.

God has valuable work for women to do and offers them eternal life
alongside men.

In particular, women are greatly valued for their role as homemakers.

Titus 2:3-5 - Young women should be taught to love their husbands and
children, be discreet, chaste, homemakers, etc.

Proverbs 31:10-31 - The work of a worthy woman is described in great
detail, stating that she should be praised for her good work. I know of no
passage that similarly describes the work of men and urges people to
praise them.

Proverbs 19:14 - Houses and riches are an inheritance from fathers,
but a prudent wife is from the Lord. [12:4]

Proverbs 18:22 - He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains
favor from the Lord.

God honors women in their role as wives, mothers and homemakers. Men
ought likewise to appreciate and praise them.

[1 Timothy 5:14; Psalm 113:9]

God values people for their service, not their authority - Matthew
20:25-28.

Society greatly honors people with authority, but it is not so among
God's people. Those whom God considers great are those who serve others.

One writer cited this passage to prove:

When men, serving as overseers, override, overturn, or in
any way attempt to countermand the concensus [sic] of the
brethren IN MATTERS OF JUDGMENT [his emphasis], they are
exercising the kind of lordship that Jesus expressly stated
would not be part of the spiritual kingdom. - Dusty Owens, The
Examiner, Vol 1, No. 3, p. 8

But the passage says no such thing. It nowhere forbids exercise of
authority. Jesus used Himself as the example to imitate, but He possessed
authority and He ordained other authority relationships, such as parents
over children, civil rulers over citizens, etc.

The point is that possession of authority does not inherently make one
great. People without authority can be as great or greater than those who
do have it. Are rulers greater before God than citizens or employers
greater than employees, simply because they differ in authority?

Likewise, the fact men have authority over women does not mean God
honors women less than He does men. Women who serve in harmony with God's
will are equally as valuable as men, regardless of differences in
authority.

Responsibility of Women in Teaching and Imparting Spiritual Truth

Women may teach children and other women.

Proverbs 1:8 - A son should hear his father's instruction and not
forsake his mother's law.

Luke 1:39-56 - Elisabeth and Mary admonished and encouraged one
another praising God.

2 Timothy 1:5 - From childhood Timothy had been taught the sacred
Scriptures (3:15). The faith he possessed clearly came through his
grandmother Lois and mother Eunice.

Titus 2:3-5 - Older women are commanded to teach younger women.

Note that Christian women are not only permitted to teach, they are
commanded to do so! God's word does limit women's role, but to deny
that women have a role in teaching God's word, or to restrict them so
they cannot fulfill their role, would be to completely contradict
Scripture!

[Ruth 1:8-17; 2:20]

Women may also discuss and impart truth in small group discussions
with men, so long as they do not exercise authority over men.

Note the following examples:

Luke 2:36-39 - Anna the prophetess spoke about Jesus to people who came
into the temple. This apparently occurred in small groups but in a public
place of worship. She spoke to "all who looked for redemption,"
which would include men.

Luke 10:40-42 - Jesus had a spiritual discussion about proper
priorities with Martha in her home. She made a comment and He responded.

John 4:19-26 - Jesus participated in a religious discussion with a
Samaritan woman at Jacob's well (a public place). The discussion began on
non-religious matters, but Jesus turned it to spiritual things. The woman
asked Him spiritual questions and commented on His answers.

John 4:28-30,39,42 - The woman then told the men of the
city the things she had learned about Jesus, imparting spiritual truth and
asking them rhetorical questions. Nothing implies that she publicly preached
a sermon or addressed a church (or synagogue) assembly. Yet she discussed
God's word in such a way that many people sought further information. As a
result many became disciples.

John 11:20-27 - Jesus and Martha conducted a spiritual discussion, each
responding to one another by affirming spiritual truths. So, Jesus allowed
women to state spiritual truth to men in small groups. [Luke 10:38-42]

Matthew 28:1-8; Luke 24:9,10; John 20:16-18 - An angel told women to
report to men that Jesus had been raised. Jesus specifically told Mary to
deliver to the brethren a message about His ascension. So several women met
in small group meeting(s) with a number of men and delivered a spiritual
message to them. This occurred by the specific authority of Jesus and an
angel. __3811_230662889">The church had not yet begun,
but would Jesus and the angel have instructed these women to do something
that would violate the New Testament teaching for the church when it did
begin?

Acts 18:26 - Apollos taught in the
synagogue in Ephesus but lacked knowledge. So Aquila and his wife Priscilla
explained God's way to him more accurately. The passage names both Aquila
and Priscilla and says they explained God's way to this
man. The language necessarily means that a woman was involved in helping
teach (impart spiritual truth to) a man. They left the assembly to do this
("took him aside"), hence a small group meeting.

Acts 2:17; 21:8,9 - The Old Testament predicted that women would be
prophetesses. As an example, the four daughters of Philip the evangelist
prophesied, apparently in the presence of Paul and other men. The
implication is that this was done in a small meeting (not the whole church),
and men heard the prophecies.

These passages show women in spiritual discussions with men. They asked
and answered spiritual questions and in some cases even imparted spiritual
truth to men. But no passage says women imparted God's word in the
congregational assemblies of the church, in the parallel synagogue
assemblies, or in any capacity in which they would be exercising authority
over men.

The Bible does not degrade women. On the contrary, the gospel views women
with the highest respect offered by any major religion. The reason people
criticize Bible teaching about women is, not because the Bible disrespects
women, but simply because the Bible does not say what some folks want it to
say.

[Matthew 15:21-28]

V. Male Leadership Roles in the Church

We have already learned that men should be the leaders in the home. We
will here see that the same is true in the church.

The Head of the Church Is Masculine.

Ephesians 1:22,23; 5:22-33 - Jesus is head over all things to the
church (Col. 1:18; Matt. 16:18). In fact, Jesus' headship over the
church is used to illustrate man's headship over woman.

Jesus is also our only mediator with God (1 Timothy 2:5), and our High
Priest (Hebrews 7:25-27). So the highest authority role in the church is
occupied by a male authority figure who lived on earth as a man. This is a
fact beyond reasonable dispute.

All Apostles Were Men.

Apostles exercised a leadership role in the early church.

Apostles accomplished several tasks in the early church, including
teaching God's word publicly, bearing witness for Jesus' resurrection,
and also leading in decision-making.

Acts 1:20 - Matthias was chosen as an apostle to take the place of
Judas. This fulfilled a prophecy that one would take his
"office" ("bishopric" - KJV; "overseership"
- ASV footnote; "place of leadership" - NIV; "position of
overseer" - NASB footnote; Greek is a form of the word for
overseer/bishop).

Acts 4:35,37 - When the church took collections for the needy, the
gifts were laid them at the apostles' feet, and they distributed to each
as anyone had need.

Acts 6:2,3,6 - When the supervision of this distribution became
burdensome, the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said to
find seven men that the apostles might appoint over this business. Note
that the apostles led in determining how to deal with the problem.

Acts 9:27 - Barnabas brought Saul to the apostles to explain that Saul
had been converted and should be received by the church.

Acts 15:6 - The apostles and elders met to consider the problem of men
from Jerusalem who were teaching that circumcision and keeping the law was
necessary to salvation. (Cf. 16:4).

All these passages describe the apostles as having leadership and a
decision-making role in the early church.

Yet apostles were always men.

1 Corinthians 1:1; 9:1; 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11,12 - Paul was chosen
as an apostle as one born out of due time. He was a man.

This was the highest role of human leadership in the early church. Each
apostle was specifically and expressly chosen by Jesus Himself, and every
one who served in that office was a man. With the completion of the New
Testament, this office is no longer needed. Yet it fits the pattern that
church leadership roles were exercised by men.

All Elders Must Be Men.

The elders had leadership authority in the local churches.

Note from the following passages that "elder,"
"bishop," and "pastor" are different terms referring
to the same work or office in the local church.

Acts 20:17,28; 1 Peter 5:1,2 - "Overseers"
("bishops") "take oversight" of the local
congregation. This word means "...a man charged with the duty of
seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, ... guardian, or
superintendent..." - GWT.

Ephesians 4:11; Acts 20:17,28; 1 Peter 5:1,2 - "Pastors"
(shepherds) tend the local church like shepherds guiding or caring for
their flock.

1 Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 13:7,17; 1 Timothy 3:4,5 - They
"rule" in the congregation, and others should "submit"
to them and "obey" them.

Elders are also responsible to teach the church, including teaching men
authoritatively (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9-14; Heb. 13:17).

Note that the terms used for the leadership of elders in the church are
similar to those used for the leadership of husbands in the home. They
guide, oversee, and rule. The members should submit and obey. These terms
show that elders have the right to make decisions that others are
obligated to follow.

Decisions must be made in a local church. The men responsible to see
that these decisions are rightly made are the elders. They must not lead
the church into activities unauthorized in the gospel; but in carrying out
authorized acts, there are many decisions that need to be made. These men
are also responsible to teach men authoritatively and to address the
assembled church.

Yet elders were always men.

* 1 Timothy 3:1,2; Titus 1:5,6 - Each elder (or bishop) must be the
husband of one wife. "Husband" literally means "man"
or "male" (the context is what indicates that he is married,
hence a "husband"). Further, he must be a husband to one wife
(literally "woman"). But a woman cannot Scripturally be a
husband to a woman/wife (Genesis 2:18-24; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4).

* Further, an elder must rule well his own house (1 Tim. 3:4,5). But we
have learned from other Scriptures that the husband, not the wife, is to
rule the family.

Note that the passages say that the elders "must" meet the
above requirements. This is not option or suggestion. These are God-given
requirements.

Since the death of the apostles, the elders occupy the highest
leadership role in the church, leading both men and women. They too are
always and necessarily men, not women.

All Deacons Must Be Men.

Deacons were men.

"Deacon" means "servant," so one might be a deacon
without exercising leadership. Nevertheless, the responsibilities might at
times involve making decisions that other men in the church ought to
follow.

1 Timothy 3:12 - Those who are qualified to serve in the office of
deacon were always men, since like the elders, they must also be husbands
of one wife, ruling their households well.

Acts 6:3-6 - The seven who were appointed to be "over" the
business of distributing to the needy in the Jerusalem church definitely
had some decision-making role. And all seven were "men."

Female "deaconesses"?

Some claim female "deaconesses" served in the early church
(Rom. 16:1,2). "Servant" is the feminine form of the word that
is elsewhere translated "deacon," however the word is more
commonly translated simply "servant" or "minister,"
even for men who are not appointed to an office (1 Thess. 3:2; 1 Tim. 4:6;
John 12:26). (This is similar to the word "elder," which is
sometimes used to refer simply to one who is older, but not appointed to
an office - Titus 2:2-4.)

So, the word for "servant" refers to an appointed office only
when the context necessarily implies it. But no context anywhere
designates a woman as appointed to any office in the church. We know that
men were appointed to an office of elder, because we have passages that
describe them being ordained (Acts 14:23) and passages that state the
specific qualifications one must meet before being appointed (1 Timothy
3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Likewise, we have a list of qualifications for men
who serve in the office of deacon (1 Timothy 3:8-13).

But what passage anywhere states that women were ever appointed
or ordained to any office in the church? And what passage states the qualifications
they must meet in order to be appointed? In the absence of a description
of their qualifications or a passage describing their ordination, the only
fair conclusion is that there was no such office. If there was, we could
never know who would qualify or who should be appointed.

Even more important, no passage anywhere describes any such women
having leadership over men or a decision-making role equivalent to that of
any man. In short, there is no evidence that any women ever served
in an office of "deaconess" that involved them in leading men or
making decisions as men did.

All Who Wrote Books of the Bible Were Men.

The Bible, of course, was written to teach authoritatively both men and
women.

While we do not know the authors of some books, yet to the extent we
know the authors, they were always men: Moses, Joshua, Peter, Paul, John,
Matthew, Luke, etc. There is no evidence whatever that any woman authored
any part of any book of the Bible.

Surely this evidence begins to mount up. Surely there is some reason
why, in the New Testament, it was men - always men and only men - who
occupied positions in the church that involved leadership or authority
over men. The kind of thing that is advocated by feminists,
denominationalists, and even some in the Lord's church simply never
happened. Surely this is related to the Bible concept of women's
subjection to men.

All Who Taught With Authority Over Men or Who Addressed Congregational
Assemblies Were Men.

Before Jesus' death, He established the pattern of male leadership
in teaching.

Many examples during Jesus' lifetime illustrate teaching in a
leadership role over men (and women). The church had not yet begun, but
Jesus' teaching was intended to prepare for the kingdom. He taught
people to obey the Old Testament as long as it remained in effect. But He
also followed principles of teaching and leadership. Would He have
established patterns in such matters that would violate the New Testament
teaching for the church when it did begin?

Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:54 - Jesus taught in synagogue meetings. These
were generally meetings of the whole assembly of Jews: men and women
assembled together. These appear to me to be the closest equivalent during
Jesus' lifetime to the assemblies of local churches. In every case,
those who spoke are listed as men. I cannot find any case where a woman
ever spoke in such a meeting. They not only did not lead the
discussions, but there is no record that they even spoke to the group. Not
one time. [Mark 1:21,39; 6:2; Luke 4:15,16,44; 6:6; 13:10; John 6:59;
18:20]

Matthew 5:1; 11:7; 12:46; 13:2,34; 15:10; 23:1 - Jesus also taught in
"multitudes" or crowds. These do not appear to be as similar to
our congregational assemblies as were synagogue meetings. The synagogue
consisted of people committed to be part of it (like the local church).
The multitudes were less formally organized. Some may have been smaller
groups. These consisted of mixed groups of men and women. In rare cases,
especially in smaller groups, women may have asked a question or made a
comment. But in every case, those who led such studies were
men, never women. [Mark 2:2,13; 3:7,20,32; 4:1; 5:31; 6:30; 7:14; 8:1;
9:14; 10:1; Luke 5:1,15; 6:17ff; 7:24; 8:4; 9:11; 11:29; 12:1,54; 14:25;
John 6:2]

Luke 3:7 - John the Baptist also taught such multitudes.

So, those who led
discussions of spiritual matters in mixed groups (men and women) were
always men. And when the synagogue met as an assembled, organized body,
there is no record of women ever speaking at all; only
men spoke.

After Jesus' death, again men taught in leadership roles over men
and in the assemblies of local churches.

Acts 9:20; 13:5,14-16,42,43; 14:1; 17:1-3,10,17; 18:4,19,26; 19:8 -
Paul and his companions often taught in Jewish synagogues. These were no
longer God's people, but teaching there involved teaching both men and
women. And they still illustrate the nature of congregational assemblies
similar to church assemblies. And when Christians taught in such mixed
meetings, those who led were always men.

Acts 18:26 - Apollos taught in the synagogue, then Aquila and
Priscilla explained God's way to him more accurately. Here a woman was
involved in helping impart spiritual truth to a man; but note that they
left the assembly to do this ("took him aside"), hence a small
group meeting. So, numerous examples show men teaching in synagogue
assemblies; but when a woman was involved in the speaking, it was not done
when the entire body was assembled.

Acts 7 - Stephen addressed the Sanhedrin council (consisting of men).
He authoritatively taught them and rebuked them for their sins.

Acts 6:2-5 - The apostles instructed the multitude of the disciples
to choose seven men to be in charge of distributing to needy members. It
appears that the whole group was involved in choosing the men (based on
qualifications that were described), but how people indicated their choice
is not stated. The only ones who are mentioned as speaking were men. The
decision of how to resolve the problem was made by men (the apostles). And
all the people chosen to be in charge of the work were men. (See further
notes on this passage later.)

Acts 11:25,26 - The church in Antioch assembled and many people were
taught. Those mentioned as doing the teaching were men. No women are
mentioned as saying anything.

Acts 11:22-24; 13:1-3; 15:27,30-32,39-41 - Those who were chosen by
local churches and sent out to proclaim the word were always men.

Acts 14:27 - Paul and Barnabas assembled the church together and
reported about their preaching trip. Again, a congregation assembled, but
only men are said to have spoken.

Acts 15:3,4 - Again, Paul and Barnabas assembled with several
churches to tell about their preaching work. Only men are said to have
spoken in these church meetings.

Acts 15:6-29 - The apostles and elders met to consider the issue of
whether or not people must still keep the Old Testament law. The decision
regarding the law was made in private by men, then it was revealed to the
congregation who accepted it as a good decision. All the people who spoke
were men, no women are said to have spoken. And the decision was made by
the leaders. (Cf. 16:4.) (See further notes on this passage later.)

Acts 15:30-32 - The church in Antioch assembled to receive the letter
from Jerusalem. The ones who spoke in this congregational meeting were men
(v32).

Acts 20:7 - The disciples in Troas met to have the Lord's Supper. The
one who spoke was a man (Paul). No indication that women spoke at all.

The pattern to this point is consistent, both during and after Jesus'
lifetime.

The following pattern has been established by example after example, role
after role, based on literally dozens of passages.

1) Only men, never women, were ever appointed to roles/offices in the church
that involved leading men or making decisions for the group.

2) When men participated, spiritual teaching or discussions were led
by men, never by women.

3) When churches assembled as a body or entire group for church functions,
the only people who ever spoke or addressed the group were men -
no examples of women speaking.

VI. A Closer Study of 1 Timothy 2:11-14

A few passages specifically address the subject of women teaching or
exercising authority over men in spiritual teaching or church activities. We
will see that these passages confirm the pattern we have seen from the examples,
stating these conclusions as applications of the principle of women's
subjection to men.

Let us begin with 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

The Circumstances to Which the Passage Applies

This passage applies, not just to congregational meetings, but to any
spiritual teaching or leadership situation involving both men and women.

What is there in the context that would limit the application of this
passage to church meetings or functions? The whole chapter describes
general life situations. This would include church meetings, but not
exclusively or primarily so. Consider:

Vv 1,2,8 - Prayer is done, not just in church meetings, but "everywhere"
(v8). ["Men" may refer to male leadership, but still prayer is
done "everywhere," not just in church meetings.]

Vv 3-7 - Salvation in Christ is not limited to church meetings.

V5 - Jesus is our mediator. Is that just in church functions? What
about private prayers?

Vv 9,10 - Modesty in women does not apply just in church meetings.

Vv 13-15 - Likewise, the principle of women being subject to men is
here stated in general, not referring just to church meetings.

Nothing in the context refers specifically to church meetings or
activities. Everything applies outside those meetings as well as inside
them. We conclude that, while the principles of vv 11,12 would apply in
church meetings, they are not limited to there.

(We will see that this differs from the context of 1 Cor. 14:34,35,
which does refer to assemblies of the whole church and teaches that women
should be silent and not even speak.)

The Meaning of "Silence" in This Context

The passage teaches women to learn in silence, with all submission, not
teaching over men. But "silence" here refers to a quiet
manner, not that women do not speak at all.

Context

We have learned that the passage has general application, not just to
church meetings. If "silence" meant she could not speak at all,
then a woman could never speak a word in any Bible study situation
anytime, anywhere if men are present. She could not even discuss with her
own husband. But we have learned that women may speak in many Bible study
situations. If absolute silence is here required, that would contradict
many other passages.

Other translations

Other translations say she should learn in "quietness" (ASV,
NIV) or "quietly" (NASB, ESV). "Quietness" does not
necessarily mean she must not speak anything at all.

Other passages

Various forms of this same word elsewhere refer to restrained, reserved
conduct, calm, peaceful, not causing disturbance or trouble - i.e.,
quietness. It does not require saying nothing.

2 Thessalonians 3:12 - Christians are commanded to work in "quietness"
(noun just like 1 Timothy 2:11,2) and eat their own bread. Absolute
silence?

1 Timothy 2:2, in our context, says to pray to "lead a quiet
(adj.) and peaceable life in all godliness." Must we pray that we
might never speak?

1 Thessalonians 4:11 - We should aspire to "lead a quiet
(adj.) life, to mind your own business..." Must we aspire to never
speak?

Acts 11:18 - People were "silent" (verb) and yet they spoke!
Silence does not mean absolutely not speaking.

Acts 21:14 - People "ceased" ("fell silent" -
NASB, verb), yet at the same time they said something. So they were
"silent" even as they spoke!

In Luke 23:56 women rested (verb) on the Sabbath - i.e., they were
quiet. Did the Sabbath rest require people to never speak?

Acts 22:2; Luke 14:4 - These are the only places where forms of this
word refer to not speaking, yet even here they are a matter of degree.
They were "more silent" ("more quiet" - ASV; all
standard versions use "more" - KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB). The people
were already "silent" but became more silent. So
"silence" is relative and does not inherently mean no speaking.

1 Peter 3:4 - To be in subjection, women must be characterized by
"a meek and quiet(adj.) spirit." Note the
parallel of 1 Pet. 3:1-6 to 1 Tim. 2:9-15. Both use the term to describe
submission of women, and both show that "quietness" means a
submissive attitude, not an authoritative, pushy, or stubborn, rebellious
manner. When you understand what "quiet" means in 1 Peter
3:4, then you understand what it means in 1 Timothy 2:11,12!

Conclusions regarding "silence" in 1 Timothy 2

The general meaning of this word (and its related forms) is a quiet,
respectful manner of conduct. It rarely refers to absolute silence with no
speech at all, and then only when context requires it. There are
different kinds and different degrees of "silence."

If "quietness" in 1 Timothy 2 means women may not speak at
all, that would even apply regarding subjection to her husband at home.
Yet we have seen passages showing that women may discuss the Bible with
their husbands and with other men. Specifically, even 1 Cor. 14:34,35 says
she should ask her husband questions at home.

So 1 Timothy 2 does not forbid all speech by women. Rather, it forbids
a woman to take any leading role over men in teaching or other spiritual
matters, even outside the church assemblies.

In a group of men and women apart from a church function, may a woman
preach a sermon, lead a Bible study, lead singing, or lead prayer? Some
would claim she may. Movies and books often describe women doing such
things. How do we know if this is right?

The answer is that 1 Timothy 2 applies to such situations and forbids
such conduct. And this agrees with all the Bible examples we have studied.
But if 1 Timothy 2 does not apply to such situations, then we have no
passage that directly states the principles involved.

[The phrase "over the man" must modify both "teach"
and "have authority" in a manner similar to Acts 4:18. Woman may
not teach or otherwise exercise authority over a man. We
have already learned that women may teach, when it does not involve
authority over men.]

[A different form of the same word is also used in 1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Thess.
4:11; Acts 11:18; 21:14; Luke 23:56.]

The Teaching of the Passage about Submission vs. Exercise of Authority

The passage teaches that women must not exercise authority over men.

She must not "have authority" (NKJV, NIV, RSV), "have
dominion" (ASV), "exercise authority" (NASB, ESV), etc. In
any situation where she is forbidden to teach over a man, she is likewise
forbidden to exercise authority over him.

Note that God does not just forbid a woman to take
authority against a man's objections. He forbids her to even "have"
or "exercise" authority over a man, regardless of
how she receives that authority. Men may not grant her the
right to exercise authority over them, for God has forbidden it. If men
tell her to lead them in Bible study or singing, etc., she still must
refuse. She may make suggestions in a submissive manner, but the men must
lead.

And note that this passage teaches submission, not just to the elders
or apostles, but to men in general. Even if there are no elders, then the
women must still submit to the men.

Why may women not exercise authority? Because they must be submissive
(v11).

But why must they be in subjection? Note the "for." Two
reasons are given:

Reason #1: V13 - For Adam was formed first, then Eve. This refers to
the creation (Gen. 2:18ff) as discussed earlier regarding wives'
subjection to husbands. [See also 1 Cor. 11:3,8,9.]

Reason #2: V14 - Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived,
fell into transgression. This refers to the punishment of woman for sin
(Gen. 3), as also discussed earlier.

But these are the same reasons why women must be subject to their
husbands! Subjection of women to men in spiritual teaching and decisions
is just an extension of their subjection to husbands. The same reasons
apply in both situations.

Conclusions Regarding Church Leadership

The principles of 1 Timothy 2 apply both inside and outside church
activities, including decision making.

Any arrangement is forbidden if it gives women greater say than men
or equal say with men in church decisions.

If she has greater say, then she is exercising authority. If she has
equal say or shared authority, she is still not in subjection! It
follows specifically that God here forbids any concept of
"congregational meetings" or "business meetings"
that gives the women equal voice with the men or that gives women power
to defeat decisions made by the men.

Some claim that decisions made by the men - and maybe even by the
elders - must be submitted to meetings of the whole
congregation, including the women, to be accepted or rejected by group
consensus; otherwise their decisions are not binding. Such an
arrangement violates the principle of women's subjection to men.

Consider some consequences of the fact that 1 Timothy 2 compares man's
leadership in the home to his leadership in the church.

Surely men should consider the needs of women in making decisions in
the church, just as they should in the home. This requires
communication; however, the Bible nowhere specifies any particular
format for that communication.

If a man properly considers his wife's needs, is he wrong to go
aside where he can consider the issue by himself alone to make a
decision? Where does the Bible say the woman must be present at the time
every decision is made, let alone that she has the ability to cancel her
husband's decisions? Rather than making decisions under the pressure
of the family, pleading and arguing, men often make better decisions
when they take time alone.

The husband is head of his wife as Christ is head of the church.
Christ makes decisions in love for the good of the church, but must we
be present whenever He makes decisions? Must we give consensus to every
decision before He can put it in effect? Is that "headship"?

The whole concept of women's subjection to men requires that men
have the right to make the final decisions, and they do so in the way
they believe best for their families, guided by God's word. This
includes the right to make decisions without the woman being present and
without needing her consensus. To deny this is to deny the whole concept
of headship.

In what other God-ordained relationship
must the leaders make their decisions in the presence
of those subject to them or submit their decisions for ratification of
the group before the decisions can take effect?

Must rulers, masters, or parents follow such rules in making decisions? Must
men do so in their families? Are decisions in these relations invalid if leaders
make decisions by themselves with no one else present? If not, then why must
elders and men do so in the church? This means:

1) It is never necessary for those under authority to be present when final
decisions are made by the elders or men.

2) If the men/elders submit their decisions to the whole church (including
women) for ratification, that gives the power of final decisions to the whole
church (including women) - not the elders and not the men. The result
is that the shepherds are being led by flock! And the men are being led by the
group, including the women! Such a practice amounts to an abdication of
authority. It directly violates the role of elders/men as leaders! It flatly
contradicts the concepts of subjection, submission, oversight, shepherding,
ruling, and obeying!

VII. A Closer Study of 1 Corinthians 14

1 Corinthians 14:34,35 places specific restrictions on women speaking in
congregational assemblies. Consider the application of this passage to women's
role in church leadership.

The Context: Lasting General Principle or Temporary Restriction?

Some argue that the theme of 1 Corinthians 12-14 is spiritual gifts.
But spiritual gifts do not exist today, so they say the restrictions on
women in 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 no longer apply; therefore, women may
speak in the assemblies, etc. Let us note the context and consider whether
or not the principles taught here apply today.

The theme of this section is order, unity, edification, and love in
contrast to confusion, division, and strife in congregational assemblies. This
theme covers at least chapters 11-14. The section repeatedly discusses general
principles about confusion and division as compared to orderly
conduct. Chap. 11 applies those principles to the Lord's
Supper, then chap. 12-14 applies them to the case of spiritual gifts.

Note 11:17-34.

11:17-19 - Paul introduces the problem that, when they "come
together" (v17) - i.e., when they "come together as a
church" (v18) - divisions existed among them.

11:20-22 - Beginning in v20, he describes how, "when you come
together," they should have taken the Lord's Supper. But they were
divided and confused, not focusing on the same activity at the same
time. Some would go ahead and eat their meal before others were ready
(v21). Some did not even care if others had little or nothing to eat
(v22).

He then teaches the proper manner of partaking of the Supper (vv
23-32).

11:33,34 - He concludes this section by warning them, "when
you come together to eat" the Lord's Supper, to wait for one
another (v33), so that everyone could focus on the same activity at the
same time. This would eliminate their disregard for one another and the
confusion caused by different people doing different things at the same
time.

Furthermore, eating to satisfy hunger should not even be done when
"you come together," but should be "at home" (v34).
Note: The rules for what we do in the assemblies are not
necessarily the same as what we do outside the assemblies. Remember
this.

So Paul here discusses general principles showing the
need for order and concern for one another, rather than confusion and
division, in our assemblies. Then he makes specific application to
the Lord's Supper. Do these principles still apply today? Do they
apply only to the Lord's Supper, or do they have broader
application than simply to the Lord's Supper?

Note chap. 12

Here Paul introduces the idea of spiritual gifts.

12:1-11 - He lists the gifts, observing that they are diverse from
one another. Yet there is unity in that all the gifts, ministries, and
activities come from the same Spirit, same Lord, same God (vv 4-6). And
they all exist for the same purpose - to profit everyone (v7).

12:12-31 - He uses the illustration of the body. Though we have
different gifts, we are all part of the same body. We should not
disregard one another, thinking we are important but others are not. We
should care for one another and not be divided.

Again, the overall theme is still the need for order and
concern for one another in the body, rather than confusion, division,
and strife. Paul continues teaching general principles,
but he applies those principles specifically to conflict over the
gifts. Do the principles he teaches still apply today? Do they
apply only to spiritual gifts?

Note chap. 13

13:1-7 - Paul teaches the "more excellent way" (12:31),
which is love. Love is better than spiritual gifts, because love shows
us how to properly treat a brother in using the gifts.

13:8-13 - Love is better than spiritual gifts because the gifts
served a temporary purpose, but would fulfill their purpose and cease.
Love, however, will always be needed.

Paul continues teaching the general principle that we should
avoid strife and division but should love and care for one another.
Paul applies these principles to spiritual gifts, but is that the only
application? Do we not apply these principles in other areas?

Note chap. 14

Paul here applies the principles he is teaching to specific problems
regarding spiritual gifts in congregational assemblies. He rebukes their
confusion, division, and spirit of competition over who has the greater
gifts. He urges the need for order in the assembly and gives
instructions how to achieve it. Do these principles apply only to
spiritual gifts? Have they ceased to apply because we no longer have
gifts? Consider:

Vv 1-19

What is done "in the church" (v19) must be understandable
so people can be edified - note vv 12,19. This is a general
principle. Paul applies it to tongues and prophecy, showing why
prophecy is more useful than tongues (vv 2,5,9,12,14,15,19). But the
principle also applies to prayer and singing - note vv 14,15. Has
this principle ceased, or does it still apply today?

Vv 20-25

We need mature understanding (v20) so we will do what is
understandable when "the whole church comes together in one
place" (v23). Then even unbelievers who come in will be
convicted. This applies to spiritual gifts, but has it ceased or is it
a general principle?

Vv 26-33

"Whenever you come together ... let all things be done to
edifying" (v26). He gives specific instructions for achieving
edification. Those who speak foreign languages should keep silent
unless there is an interpreter. The number of speakers should be
limited, and they speak "in turn" (v27), so whenever one
person is speaking, the rest of the group should keep silent and
listen to him (v30).

The goal is that all can learn and be encouraged (v31), resulting
in peace, because God is not the author of confusion. This applies in
all churches (v33). Paul applies these principles to spiritual gifts,
but have the principles ceased application, or do they still apply in
churches today?

Vv 34,35

Women should keep silent "in the churches," for they are
not permitted to speak but to be in submission. If they have a
question they should ask it at home (outside the assembly), because it
is a shame for women to speak "in the church."

The subject is still the need for order and edification in the
assemblies, not confusion and division. Maintaining order requires
proper authority: someone must be in charge. The men should lead in
the church. But in congregational assemblies, this means it is
shameful for women to speak. Is this still true today, or did it apply
only to spiritual gifts?

Vv 37-40

Paul concludes by saying these are commands from the Lord, and
everything should be done "decently and in order." Do these
commands still apply today?

Paul began by stating his concern for their conduct (division,
confusion, lack of love) in church assemblies (11:17-19) and ends by
stating all should be done in a decent, orderly manner (v40). He made
many specific applications to spiritual gifts, but why should we ignore
the principles as though they have no other applications today?

A summary of the principles taught in 11:17-14:40.

Do these still apply today, or have they all ceased because spiritual
gifts ceased?

* Everyone focus together on the same act of worship - 11:21,33.
* Whatever does not fit the purpose of authorized acts should be done
elsewhere - 11:34.
* The different members of the body should be united and care for one
another - chap. 12.
* Service to God and others must be motivated by love - 13:1-7.
* Everything in congregational assemblies should be understandable
- 14:1-25.
* Everything in the assembly should be edifying - 14:26.
* Foreign languages must be interpreted - 14:27,28. (May we apply
this to mass in Latin?)
* Speakers should speak by two or three, in turn; everyone listen to
each speaker - 14:27-32.
* God is the author of peace, not confusion - 14:33.
* Women should be in subjection and remain silent - 14:34,35.
* All should be done decently and in order - 14:40

These are the commands of the Lord (14:37)! May we apply them to uninspired,
non-miraculous activities? If so, why should we not apply
14:34,35 to our assemblies today?

The only thing that has ceased is the application of
these principles to spiritual gifts, because spiritual gifts have
ceased. But the principles themselves have not ceased.
They continue to be binding!

Conclusions regarding application of the passage today:

1) The context contains many general principles we all know still
apply. The principle that women may not speak at all is one of
these general principles that still apply.

2) In the many other Bible examples we have studied, no Scripture
anywhere describes women speaking in congregational assemblies.
The speakers were always men. No godly woman ever asked a question, made a
comment, or read a Scripture, let alone did she speak up in a
congregational meeting to make decisions for the church.

3) If the principle of 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 no longer applies, then any
woman today may ask questions, make comments, or read Scripture in any
church meeting, including Sunday worship assemblies.

4) The silence of women in congregational assemblies is based on
the principle of subjection of women to men. This is not a
temporary rule but a universal principle, as shown by many passages listed
above. It is confirmed by the abundant evidence of male leadership in the
church. 1 Timothy 2:11-14 applies the principle of male leadership more
broadly than church assemblies, yet it shows that the principle of women's
subjection is a lasting, universal principle. To apply it
just to spiritual gifts would be a misapplication.

5) If the teaching of 1 Cor. 12-14 applies only to churches that have
spiritual gifts, then churches without such gifts, then or now, should
disregard these chapters. But v33 says the principles apply in all
the churches of the saints, including those without spiritual gifts.

If 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 applies only to the age of spiritual gifts,
then we must completely eliminate the passage from our arsenal in dealing
with women's role in the church. The conclusion must be that the
passage is irrelevant today, so women are free to speak up in any and all
congregational assemblies. Some have gone that route so completely that
they claim a woman may lead prayer, lead singing, and even preach!

Eliminating 1 Corinthians 14 is a giant leap in advancing feminism.
Where will we stop?

The Women Addressed: Application to All Women or Just to Specific
Women?

Some try to limit the application of 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 to just
certain women, who (they say) were causing confusion. Some say Paul
addressed only prophets' wives. The conclusion is that the passage does
not forbid women today from asking questions, etc., in church assemblies
provide they do so respectfully, without interrupting.

Old-time preachers often made such arguments to justify women speaking
in Bible classes, yet they never encouraged women to actively speak out in
church assemblies. But some today use this approach to aggressively argue
that women must be permitted to speak even in congregational assemblies.
While I believe women may speak respectfully in Bible classes, I disagree
with this approach to 1 Corinthians 14:34,35.

Where does the passage say only certain women were causing
disruption?

Unless the passage itself says this, then the argument is unfounded
speculation. What the passage does say is that women should not speak in
church assemblies but may speak outside the assembly. Shall we allow
them to do the opposite, by making comments and reading Scriptures in
the assembly, on the basis of unproved speculation?

Some say "your women" (NKJV) means prophets' wives, and
they could ask their husbands at home because they had inspired
husbands. And since we have no prophets now, the passage has no
application today. But where does the passage say it applies only to
prophets' wives?

1) No standard translation ever translates the word in this
context as "wives."

Although the word can mean "wives" in some contexts, yet
in this context standard translations all say
"women" (many even translate it "the women," not
"your women"). If the word means "wives," why do
no standard translations so translate it? ["Your women" -
NKJV, KJV; "the women" - ASV, NASB, ESV; "women"
- RSV; NIV]

2) "You" throughout the context refers to
"brethren," not just to prophets.

Note vv 6,9,12,20,26,36,37,39. So, even if "women" in v34
did refer to married women, why restrict it to prophets'
wives instead of all wives?

Prophets are talked about in vv 29-32, just like
tongue speakers are talked about in vv 27,28. But
"you" in the context does not specifically address prophets
any more than it does tongue speakers. (Why not conclude "your
women" means wives of tongue-speakers?)

3) Why restrict all the prophets' wives and only
the prophets' wives?

Were all the prophet's wives causing confusion? Did no
other women cause confusion? Why did so many prophets have obnoxious,
uncontrollable wives, but all the other men could control their wives?
Such a view is beyond belief. Surely Paul spoke regarding all women.

When things could be done properly, Paul stated the proper way. But
when things did not belong in the assembly, he excluded them
altogether.

If there is a proper way for women to speak in the assembly, why didn't
Paul just identify what was being done wrong and tell them how to speak
properly?

Consider how Paul handled various problems in the context:

* Some caused confusion by taking the Lord's Supper
improperly. But Paul did not put the Lord's Supper out of the assembly
altogether; he told how they should partake properly. But in contrast,
he put common meals outside the assembly altogether (chap. 11).

* Some caused confusion by
using tongues improperly, but Paul did not put tongue speaking out of
the assembly. He told how they could speak properly (v27).

* Some caused confusion by prophesying improperly,
but Paul did not put prophecy out of the assembly. He told how they
could speak properly (vv 28-31).

If it is permissible for women to speak in congregational
assemblies provided they do so properly, why didn't Paul just tell
them the proper way? Why did he say it is shameful for women to speak
in the church and place their speaking altogether outside the
assembly, like he did the common meal? If the only problem was their manner
of speaking, why did he eliminate the speaking
altogether?

Contrast Paul's approach to the way some today deal with the
issue.

Some today try to teach women the proper manner of speaking, then
they say "it is permitted for them to speak" and
"it is not shameful to speak." Paul, however,
did not tell women the proper way to speak; he said they
are "not permitted to speak" and "it is shameful
for women to speak in church." Why the difference, if in fact women
may speak if they do so properly?

Paul's teaching is based on general principles. To whom did the
principles apply?

Paul gives reasons for his instruction. Note his use of the word "for"
in vv 34,35.

1) Note "for" in v34: Paul's conclusion is based
first on the principle of subjection of women to men. Does that
principle apply to all women or only to certain women (prophets'
wives)? The women who must be submissive in church assemblies, those are
the women who are forbidden to speak. But all women must be in
subjection, so all must remain silent.

2) Note "for" in v35: Paul concluded that women are not
permitted to speak because"it is shameful for
women to speak in church." That is stated as a general
principle applying universally to women. Nothing indicates that this
reason applies only to specific women. Why allow some women to speak but
not others, in light of this general prohibition?

3) Vv 33 says this teaching applies in "all the churches of the
saints." If this meant only prophets' wives, how could it apply
to a church that had no prophets? Paul said it applied to all churches,
which would include those without prophets. So it cannot refer just to
prophets' wives.

"Ask your husband at home" does not prove women were
married to prophets.

Many Bible examples involve women - married and unmarried - asking
questions and having discussions with men other than their husbands and in
places other than at home. See John 4:1-26; 11:20-27; Luke 10:38-42; Acts
16:15 and other examples studied earlier.

And just because a man was a prophet did not prove he could answer
every question. No one prophet received all truth. And prophets had to
study their own revelations to understand them (see Acts 10). So all men,
then or now, could know the truth by studying all the prophet's
revelations. If not, then we today are at a serious disadvantage by having
no prophets!

"At home" simply means outside the assembly (more on this
later). Could she not ask her husband on the way home or some other place
besides home? Could she not ask some man besides her husband? "Ask
her husband at home" simply means to get her information outside the
assembly, just like "let him eat at home" in chap. 11 means to
eat common meals outside the assembly. It follows that prophets' wives
had no advantage in having their questions answered.

We have problems with these issues because some folks have turned
specific instructions into generics and general instructions into
specifics. Context shows that the command to women to be silent is general
in that it applies to all women. So, it is a mistake to apply it only to
certain women. But the command is specific in that it applies only when
those women are "in the church" (i.e., when the whole church is
assembled together). So, it is a mistake to apply it when the whole church
is not assembled together - as in our classes. The command is
limited, not with regard to which women it addresses, but with regard to
the circumstances where it applies.

The Kind of Speech Forbidden

Some say Paul's teaching here is similar to 1 Timothy 2 in that it
allows women to speak so long as they do so respectfully. [Others say this
is a "not...but" passage, that emphasizes the second point (to
be submissive) but does not forbid the first point (not permitted to
speak).

But note the further evidence of the context.

In
1 Corinthians Paul adds an additional specific limitation: he said women
"are not permitted to
speak" and "it is shameful for women to speak in
church."

Note this carefully! In 1 Timothy 2 Paul said simply that women must
be "quiet" - i.e., submissive - and he applied it to all
spiritual teaching or authority situations. In that broader situation,
Paul nowhere said women are not permitted to "speak."

But in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul discusses a more specific circumstance
(congregational assemblies) and gives a more restrictive command. In
this specific circumstance, he said that women are not permitted tospeak
and it is shameful for them to speak.

This is a critical difference that brethren must not overlook!

He further clarified that "speaking" here means not even
to ask a question.

To make sure we don't miss the meaning, Paul added that women were
even to ask their questions outside the assembly (v35). So, the speaking
that is forbidden "in church" includes even the asking of
questions. Yet some folks want to allow, not just asking questions in
the assemblies, but even making comments and reading Scripture to the
group!

Again, if Paul meant to allow women to speak if they did so
properly, why didn't he tell how to do it properly? Why place it
completely outside the assembly?

If Paul simply meant to correct an abuse, why did he not describe the
proper conduct in the assembly as he did with tongues and prophecy and
as he did with the Lord's Supper in chap. 11? The only sensible answer
is that women are simply not permitted even to ask or answer questions.
Instead, Paul told them to do it elsewhere, as he did with eating common
meals.

This is what it means for women to be "submissive" in the
context of the congregational assemblies. So, why should we permit what
he expressly forbade?

Compare the instructions to women to those to tongue-speakers and
prophets.

* Note the instructions in the three cases:

If there is an interpreter, a tongue speaker was allowed to "speak"
(v27). But if there were no interpreter, he was to "keep silent"
and not speak in church (v28).

Likewise, prophets were to "speak" by two or
three (v29); but when one prophet spoke, the others were to remain "silent"
(v30).

By contrast, women were to keep "silent" in
the churches, for it is not permitted for them to "speak,"
for it is shameful for them to "speak" in
church.

The words for "speak"
and "silent" are the same
in all three cases: the same words in the same context. Surely the
meaning is the same.

* Now note the circumstances under which they may speak or be
silent:

Tongue speakers could speak if there was an interpreter. But "if
there is no interpreter," they were to "keep silent." Under
the circumstances described (no interpreter),silence meant
tongue speakers were not to speak in tongues at all. They
were not to utter words to the group.

Prophets must "keep silent" - i.e., not speak - if
someone else was speaking. Under the circumstances described
(another man was speaking), silence meant prophets were not to speak
at all. They were not to utter words to the group.

Now regarding women the passage says that, "in church,"
they are to "keep silent," for they are not
permitted to speak, for it is shameful for them to speak.
What does "speak" mean here? It means uttering words to the
group. What does "silence" mean? It means not
uttering words to the group. The meaning is the same in all three cases!

The difference in the three cases is the circumstance in which
the restriction applied.

1) Tongue speakers must not speak with no interpreter but could speak
with an interpreter.

2) Prophets must not speak if someone else spoke, but could speak
when no one else spoke.

3) Women must not speak at all "in church," but could speak
outside the church assemblies.

The words "silent" and "speak" mean
the same in all three cases, but the circumstances were
different. Women were restricted from speaking at all "in
church," but they could speak in different circumstances (outside
the congregational assembly).

This also shows that the forbidden "speaking" involved
uttering words that are addressed or intended to convey a message to the
group. Nothing, for example, forbids a woman whispering
something privately to her child or husband. This is not the
"speaking" being forbidden. What is forbidden is addressing
speech to the group or asking a question directed to the group.

What about singing or confessing Christ before baptism?

Ephesians 5:19, etc., commands all Christians to "speak" (lalew) to one another in song. As on other
subjects, we must take all the Bible says on any subject. Likewise with
confession, this speech is permitted for women in the assembly because other
passages require it.

Some people reach false conclusions about "faith only"
because they ignore what is taught in other passages about baptism. The
conclusions are modified by instructions in other passages. So we must
consider the commands of other passages when we study 1 Cor. 14.

The Place or Circumstance Where the Restrictions Apply

Note: "Let your women keep silent in the churches,
for they are not permitted to speak ... for it is shameful for women to
speak in church." The limitation on women
speaking applies only "in church." To emphasize this Paul states
it twice.

We have already learned that women may ask and answer questions in
other circumstances. In fact Paul here specifically states that women may
do elsewhere what they may not do "in church." So
we have general authority that allows women to discuss God's word
under general circumstances. But the limitation that forbids their
speaking is specific and applies only "in church." It
follows that the phrase "in Church" must have a special,
specific meaning in context, since the general rule is that women may
speak.

Consider the significance of "in the church" according to
the context:

* 1 Corinthians 14

V4 - One man ("he") may speak in a way that edifies
"the church."

V5 - A man ("he") may speak so that "the church"
receives edification.

V12 - Seek to excel for the edification of "the church."

V19 - "In the church" I should speak so I
may teach others.

V23 - "The whole church comes together in one
place." (Visitors may "come in.")

V28 - Tongue speakers speak by two or three, if there is an
interpreter (v27). Otherwise, they "keep silent in church."
This is contrasted to speaking to himself and to God. Note
that what is forbidden "in church" is not necessarily
forbidden elsewhere!

V33 - God is the author, not of confusion, but of peace "in
all the churches of the saints."

Vv 34,35 - Women are to "keep silent in the churches"
for they are not permitted to speak. It is shameful for women to speak
"in church." However, they may do elsewhere
the very thing forbidden for them to do "in church" - i.e.,
ask questions. The very verses under consideration distinguish
"in church" from other circumstances!

* Compare 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

V17 - They had "come together."

V18 - They had "come together as a church."

V20 - They had "come together in one place."

V22 - What they should have done was something different from
eating and drinking in their houses. They were acting as though they
despised the church.

V33 - They ought to "come together" to eat the Lord's
Supper. They ought to "wait for one another," so they could
focus together on the same act of worship. This clearly implies they
were all assembled in one group where they could all focus on the same
act at the same time.

V34 - Eating to satisfy hunger should be done "at home"
(outside the assembly), lest you "come together" in a way that
results in judgment.

All these expressions show that "coming together as a
church" to eat the Lord's Supper meant the whole congregation was
together in one group so all could focus on an act together.

All this explains the significance of "in the church" in
chap. 14:

Note carefully: in the context of 1 Cor. 14 "in church"
means "the whole church" (cf. v31), and it is assembled together.
That is, the entire congregation is expected to attend and to meet
together to accomplish a church function.

So "in the church" in this context means "the whole
church," and the whole church has come together or assembled
together.

2) Further, the whole church is together such that, as each speaker
speaks, he is addressing the whole group.

Note especially v31 (cf. vv 4,5,12,31). As each teacher speaks,
"all may learn and all may be
exhorted." All who? All the whole church. So, we are
"in church" when the whole church is together in such a way
that each person who speaks is addressing "the whole church."

3) Speakers must speak one by one (one at a time), so the whole
group can focus on the same activity or subject (vv 27,30,31; cf.
11:21,33). Note:

V27 - "in turn"; V31 - "one by one"

The only reason this could matter is if they are all in the same
group.

4) The whole church is together such that confusion would result if
more than one teacher spoke at the same time (see vv 27-33).

5) The whole church is together, such that the Lord's Supper could
be eaten (if it was the first day of the week) (cf. 11:17,18,20,33).

So, whereas women are allowed to discuss God's word with men in
other circumstances, a specific exception applies under the specific,
limited circumstances of 1 Cor. 14. Context shows this means the whole
congregation is together as the same assembly, the
same group, the same meeting, the same gathering.
The whole group is together in a way that they are expected to focus
together on each activity. When anyone speaks, they address the whole
group. If more than one spoke at once, confusion would result.

Under this specific circumstance, women must keep silent: They are
not permitted to speak, because it is shameful for women to speak "in
church." However, they may do elsewhere the very
thing forbidden for them to do "in church."

Different rules apply "when the church is come together"
compared to outside those assemblies.

It is true that some of the principles taught here may
have application outside the assembly. In fact, 1 Tim. 2:11,12 shows
that women must not teach authoritatively over men even outside the
assembly (see notes there). But there are also definite differences.

Note some rules when the church comes together in one place. Do
these same rules apply outside the church assemblies?

* We may eat the Lord's Supper (11:18-22,33).

* We should not eat a meal to satisfy hunger (11:34).

* We should all focus on the same act of worship (11:21,33). (Must we
all focus on the same act after the assembly dismisses? Could you be
singing, another family praying, etc.?)

* The number of teachers is limited (14:27,29). (Must this be so
outside the assemblies? May different families or small groups be
studying at the same time, each having its own teacher?)

* Speak only languages that the group knows or have an interpreter
(14:27,28). (Must we speak outside the assembly only languages that are
known by the whole group?)

* Only one speaker at a time (14:27-31). Speakers speak "in
turn" (v27) and "one by one" (v31). If anyone else begins
to speak, the others must be silent and listen (v30). (May there be
several members speaking at once after the assembly is dismissed?)

* Women must keep silent, not even to ask questions (14:34,35). (Must
they keep silent and not even ask questions outside the assembly?)

* This very context of vv 34,35 contrasts "in the church"
to "at home," expressly saying women may do at home what
should not be done in the church.

So, there are rules of conduct in the assemblies that do not apply
outside the assemblies. This is specifically stated to be true regarding
women speaking. Don't we all do things after the assembly dismisses
- even immediately afterward - that would be forbidden in the
assembly?

What is the application to Bible classes?

May women ask and answer questions in our classes? The answer is that
they may do so whenever it is not "the whole church
together." We have already studied passages that show women may
speak and ask questions outside the assemblies. The rule
forbidding women to speak applies only "in church"
- when the whole church is together, functioning as a church.

Consider the other rules we have listed that apply in the assemblies
but not outside assemblies (only one person speaking at a time, eating
the Lord's Supper is permitted, etc). Do these apply to classes
(consider our classes as a whole, all of them going on at once)? Some
rules apply for other reasons (not necessarily because it is an
assembly), but in most cases we recognize that the rules do not apply
because we are not assembled together. (This same distinction is made in schools, where
"assemblies" of the whole school are distinguished from
individual classroom studies.)

Yet even in such classes a woman must not take control of teaching
men, authoritatively leading or directing the study. If the class has a
leader, 1 Timothy 2:11,12 shows he must be a man. But there is no reason
why a woman cannot ask and answer questions and make comments with men
present as long as the circumstances are such that we do not have an
assembly of the whole church in one body, and as long as she speaks
respectfully.

"At home" simply means outside the assembly.

Chap. 14, compared to 11:22,34, shows that "at home" simply
refers to circumstances other than the whole church gathered together
(see the verses listed above). 14:34,35 is not intended to require a
woman to be in her own private abode to ask questions, any more than
11:34 means you must be in your own private abode in order to eat to
satisfy hunger. [Cf. also 14:27,28.]

Remember that we other Scriptures showing that women may discuss the
Bible with men in places other than just in their own private abode and
with men other than their own husbands. Studying other such passages
proves Paul does not mean she may only ask her own husband in her own
private abode.

Paul's point is that, just because women are not permitted to speak
when the whole congregation is together, that does not mean they may
never obtain answers to their questions. They may do so under other
circumstances - just not by asking them "in the church."
This is the same point he made in chap. 11 regarding eating to satisfy
hunger. He was not saying people must not eat to satisfy hunger, but
that they should do so aside from church activity.

1 Timothy applies to spiritual teaching and leadership roles between
men and women in general, and says that women must act (and speak)
quietly in submission. 1 Corinthians 14 applies specifically when the
whole church is assembled together and adds that women are not permitted
to speak or even ask questions. 1 Corinthians 14 is more specific both
regarding the circumstances where it applies and regarding the
restrictions it places on women's conduct.

We earlier showed that men/elders may make decisions for the church
without women being present (if they consider the women's needs). We
will see more evidence soon. But some claim the whole church - men and
women together - must meet to make decisions. That would be "the
whole church come together," so consider the application of 1
Corinthians 14.

Rules for subjection in decision making should be consistent with
rules for subjection in teaching.

1 Timothy 2 says women should submit to men both in spiritual teaching
and in authority. 1 Corinthians 14 applies this to mean
that, when the whole church meets together, women should not speak at
all. IF we had church meetings for making decisions, why
wouldn't consistency mean that women should not speak in those
meetings, since the whole church is together?

If there is danger that women might leave their place of subjection
if they are allowed to speak out in congregational teaching assemblies,
wouldn't it be even more likely that they might leave their place of
subjection if they are allowed to speak out in decision-making meetings?
Doesn't decision making more inherently involve exercise of authority
than does worship? Whatever reasons and concerns motivated God to forbid
women speaking in congregational meetings for worship and teaching,
the same reasons and concerns should lead us to oppose women speaking in
congregational meetings for decision making.

When people argue that women may speak in church decision meetings,
they usually agree that the same principles apply to worship
assemblies.

So they agree that the practice of women speaking in decision-making
meetings stands or falls together with the practice of women speaking in
worship assemblies. We agree on this point! They say women may speak in
both kinds of meetings. I believe they may not speak in either kind. But
we agree the rules should be the same for both.

Most leaders in this movement know this is true (though
some followers do not recognize this consequence). Some of them press
for women to speak in worship assemblies. Others don't push that, for
whatever reason, but they know that their arguments allow it.

In any case, the views these people hold simply cannot be harmonized
with 1 Corinthians 14:

Paul said women are not permitted to speak in church.
Men say women are permitted to speak in church.

Paul said it is shameful for women to speak in church.
Men say it is not shameful for women to speak in church.

Paul said women should ask questions at home (outside church
assemblies). Men say women may ask questions, make comments, read
Scripture, and have full voice with men in making decisions in church
assemblies.

Bottom line: If we allow women to speak in congregational decision
meetings, what will prevent them from speaking in congregational
worship meetings?

When people argue that women may speak in church decision meetings, they
deny the limitations on women in 1 Corinthians 14 apply today at all. If we
accept their reasoning, we will be compelled to accept women speaking in all
church functions, (Sunday AM, etc.).

The effort to place women in "business meetings" and church
decision meetings, whether intentionally or not, will have the effect of
moving them into positions of leadership and out of positions of subjection.
It will become part of an overall feminist movement to place women in
leadership roles in teaching and worship as well as in decision making.

VIII. Examples of Church Decision Making

Some believe that women must be allowed to speak in meetings whenever
decisions are made for the church. Others say decisions may only be made in
meetings of the whole congregation, or that all decisions must be ratified
by congregational meetings, including women.

We have shown that such views contradict the authority and leadership of
elders and of men. The general passages about the authority of
elders and men allow them to make decisions on behalf of the group, whether
or not the group is present and without their ratification.

But some folks claim specific examples prove their view, so let us
consider examples of church decision making. We will see that, rather than
changing our conclusions, examples actually strengthen and confirm them.

Acts 4:34,35; 11:27-30

Acts 4:34,35 - Disciples cared for their needy by bringing funds and
laying them at the apostle's feet. They (the apostles) then distributed
to each as anyone had need (cf. Acts 6 below).

Acts 11:27-30 - In order to relieve brethren in Judea during a famine,
the disciples in Antioch sent funds to the elders (each local church
having its own elders - 14:23). The obvious reason for sending it to the
elders is that those men were responsible to supervise the distribution of
the funds to the needy members (like the apostles were in Acts 4).

Leaders' decisions need no ratification by the church.

Both examples involved leaders (apostles/elders) in evaluating
circumstances of each needy person and then deciding how much to
distribute to each, when, how often, in what form, etc. This would
require making numerous specific decisions, often involving discussing
confidential information about each member's needs and circumstances.
So, the passages authorized leaders to make such decisions as they
thought best, which would include making them in private.

Nothing implies, let alone requires, that the leaders submit each
such decision to the whole congregation for ratification. To do so would
tie their hands to the point of absurdity. (And note that these
decisions were all in the area of judgment, not doctrine.)

All decisions were made by men.

No woman was involved.

Acts 9:26-28

When Saul sought to join the disciples in Jerusalem, a question arose
as to whether he was truly a disciple and should be received. Barnabas
took Saul to "the apostles" and told them about Saul's
conversion. As a result, Saul was "with them at Jerusalem,"
participating in their meetings and teaching work, etc.

The leaders met in private to make a decision for the congregation

According to the record, the only ones involved in making that
decision were "the apostles." Nowhere is there evidence of a
congregational meeting, including women, to ratify the decision.

All who participated in making the decision were men.

No woman is said to have been involved. This passage authorizes exactly
that kind of decision making that we have been defending but some people
oppose.

Galatians 2:1-10

Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to discuss with brethren there
about circumcision.

Context makes clear that this is the same occasion discussed in Acts
15 below.

This is clear because:

* Both passages refer to meetings in Jerusalem.

* Both involved Paul and Barnabas going to Jerusalem.

* Both involved meetings with church leaders in Jerusalem,
specifically Peter and James.

* In both passages the issue was whether or not circumcision should
be bound on Gentiles.

* In both passages the meeting was necessitated by people who had
agitated the view that circumcision was necessary.

* In both passages the decision was that such would not be necessary.

The chances are minuscule that two such conferences occurred in close
approximation. In both accounts the meeting concluded with complete
agreement among the inspired men. To have a second such meeting soon
afterward would be senseless.

We will see the significance of this when we study Acts 15.

Decisions were made in a meeting conducted "privately" (v2).

Those of reputation met and made the following decisions:

* Titus would not be required to be circumcised - v3.

* Paul and Barnabas would be fellowshipped in their work of preaching
to the Gentiles - v9.

* Paul and Barnabas should remember the poor (i.e., the needy saints
in Jerusalem) - v10.

The truth would have been revealed by inspiration. But even inspired
men had to study the revelations received in order to make proper
application of them, just like we have to study the written word (see
Acts 10). Then specific decisions were made, including those listed
above. (Note that these decisions involved some aspects of judgment,
such as the work of remembering the poor in Jerusalem.)

Galatians 2 shows clearly that the real decisions in this matter were
reached in a private meeting! Even if this is not the same
occasion as Acts 15, the fact remains that here is a private meeting of
church leaders to reach a major decision that was then revealed for the
whole congregation to follow.

This passage describes decisions being made in exactly the way we are
defending but some are opposing. The God-ordained leaders of the
congregation met and made a decision that the whole group was expected
to accept.

All involved in the meeting were men.

Several men were in the meeting (Paul, Barnabas, Titus - v1, Peter,
James, and John - v9), but no woman is identified as being involved!

Consider: So far the specific examples concur with what we already
proved by general authority. Male leaders have the right to make decisions
for the church, without the whole church being present, without women
speaking out, and without a congregational meeting to give consensus. This
agrees with the evidence we have presented to show that all church leaders
were men, women must be subject to men and must never have equal
leadership with men, and in particular women must not even speak when the
whole church meets as a body.

Acts 15

Some cite this passage to claim the whole church must meet to make
congregational decisions, women must be allowed to speak, etc. But this is
the same event as Gal. 2 (see above), and we have already proved that the
actual decisions were made in a private meeting in which only men were
said to be present! Acts 15 cannot possibly prove church decisions can
only be made in a congregational meeting, since Galatians 2 has already
proved the opposite!

Consider the evidence further:

Vv 1-3 - The issue in Antioch

Some men from Judea taught that the brethren in Antioch must be
circumcised to be saved. It was determined that Paul and Barnabas should
go to Jerusalem about the question. Since the church sent them on their
way, some claim this means the whole church met, including the women,
made a group decision, and sent the men.

But the text does not say that. V2 tells us that the decision
was made to send them to Jerusalem, but does not say who or how it was
done. Then v3 says the church acted on the decision that
had been made and sent them. Nothing states or even implies that the
whole church actively participated in making the decision. It simply
says that the church followed the decision that had been made.

Suppose I say my wife and I determined to send our son to college, so
our family sent him on his way. Does that prove we had a family meeting,
and the whole family (including all the children) had to grant general
consensus or else the decision was not valid? Surely not. The language
simply means that the family leaders made the decision and the family
accepted the decision and acted accordingly. Can parents not make
decisions alone by themselves, apart from the children? To say otherwise
is to flatly deny the authority of leaders.

When people claim decisions must be made by the whole church
together, they assume what they must prove. They are like folks who read
an account of a household conversion, they assume there were babies in
the household, so they conclude this justifies infant baptism. Yet none
of this is mentioned in the passage, the language does not require it,
and the conclusion flatly contradicts other passages. Likewise, brethren
read passages about churches making decisions, they assume women were
involved in making the decisions, so they conclude women must share with
men in church decision meetings. Yet none of this is stated in
Scripture, the language does not require it, and the conclusion flatly
contradicts other passages. Those who make such arguments show that they
do not understand submission to leadership.

Vv 4,5 - The meeting to receive Paul and Barnabas' report

Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem and met with the church and
the apostles and elders (note the church was present) and reported on
their work. Some believing Pharisees rose up saying circumcision was
necessary.

This was a group meeting, but it involved no decision making. They
simply heard two men report on their preaching work. We have often seen
that done in congregational meetings. Note that only men are said to
have spoken in the meeting.

Vv 6-21 - The meeting of the apostles and elders regarding
circumcision

Note v6 - The apostles and elders came together to consider the
matter. This was clearly a different meeting from vv 4,5.

I personally conclude this is the same meeting as described in
Galatians 2:1-10 - a private meeting between Paul and Barnabas and
the leading men at Jerusalem.

Essentially everything fits. V6 says the "apostles and elders
came together." If the whole church was present, why doesn't it
say so as in v4? In v13 James addressed those present as "men and
brethren." 16:4 says the decision was made by "the apostles
and elders." (Later they met with the church and presented their
conclusion to them - v22.)

The only issue with this view is that v12 says "the
multitude" was present. This may sound like a large crowd, but
the word here is not the word for a crowd. This word (plhqoV) basically carries the idea of "fulness"
(Vine). Used with the article, as here, it means "the whole
number, the whole multitude, the assemblage" (Thayer) - i.e.,
the whole group under consideration, whoever that may be according to
context.

John 21:6 uses the word to refer to 153 fish (v11). Acts 28:3 -
Paul carried a "bundle" of sticks (perhaps a dozen or two?).
James 5:20 - Converting a "brother" from error covers a
"multitude" of sins (the full number he is guilty of,
perhaps just a few).

Note that Acts 23:7 uses this word for the "assembly"
(NKJV) of the Sanhedrin council - a deliberating body of 70 men. So
a relatively small group of men, who met - often privately - to make
decisions on behalf of the Jewish nation, are described by the word
for "multitude"!

Similarly, it would be valid to call the "private"
meeting of Gal. 2:1-10 and Acts 15:6-21 a "multitude." It
included Paul, Barnabas, the apostles, some of the Judaizers (Acts
15:7; Gal. 2:5,6?), and the elders of a congregation (the church
probably consisted of thousands of people). This could easily
constitute a "multitude," the fullness of which listened to
Paul and Barnabas.

Nevertheless, suppose the whole church was present in vv 6-21.

If so, then this must be a different meeting that occurred after
the one in Galatians 2. It must have come afterwards, because Paul said
in Gal. 2 that he met privately with the leaders lest he had run in vain
(2:2). He wanted to make sure the issue would be resolved properly
before it became a public issue (a perfectly valid reason for having
private decision meetings!).

So, if the church was present in Acts 15:6-21, then this was not
the meeting where the decisions were made. The decisions had already
been made in private by the authorized church leaders, all of whom were
men. In that case the vv 6-21 meeting must have been to explain to the
congregation the reasons for the decision and try to convince those who
had disagreed (v7).

And note, even so, that everyone who spoke was a man! If
the women were a part of the "men and brethren" (v13), there
is no proof here that any women spoke to the group.

This might compare to the setting of a modern public
"debate" in which men of opposing views express their ideas in
the presence of the whole congregation. But it was not a decision-making
meeting, since the decisions had already been made. In any case, if
women were present, they would not have been permitted to speak because
it would be shameful for them to speak - 1 Corinthians 14:34,35.

Vv 22-29 - The letter sent to Antioch

After the decisions in the matter had been reached (as already
discussed), the group - apostles, elders, and the whole church - was
"pleased" to send chosen men to Antioch, along
with a letter, to explain the decision (v22). This was needed since the
Antioch church had asked the Jerusalem church about the teachers who had
gone to Antioch from Jerusalem (15:1,24).

V25 says it "seemed good" to them,
"being assembled with one accord," to send the chosen men. V28
says "it seemed good" to them and to the Holy
Spirit.

Some claim this proves the whole church participated in the decision
of vv 6-21, or at least that they participated in the decision to send
men and the letter, or that the church had to ratify by group consensus
the decisions previously made. But consider:

1. We already proved that the decisions were made in a private
meeting before the church as a whole was ever involved.

So this event authorizes church leaders to meet
"privately" apart from the whole church to make decisions.
Nothing in subsequent verses may be taken to contradict this fact.

2. The decisions were made by apostles as well aselders
- see 15:6; 16:4. Must the church ratify the decisions of apostles?

If the church disagreed, could they nullify the decisions of
apostles? If not, then how can this passage be used to prove the
church must ratify the decisions of elders or of men (if there are no
elders)? You cannot use this passage to prove consensus of the whole
church is needed to approve the decisions of elders and/or men until
such time as you are prepared to use the passage to prove that
consensus of the whole church is needed to approve the decisions of
apostles! The very idea is absurd!

3. V23 also says "they" wrote a letter. Does this
mean that the letter was composed in a meeting by active
participation of the whole church?

Did the whole church meet to compose the letter, with everyone
expressing his/her views about the contents? Who can believe it? If
"they wrote" a letter in v23 does not mean the
whole group met together to compose the letter, then why does they
were "pleased" in v22 require that the decisions had to be
made or ratified in a meeting with everyone present, etc.?

4. V28 says the decision "seemed good" to the Holy
Spirit and to them. Did this prove the church had the right to
ratify or veto the decisions of the Holy Spirit?

If the Spirit's viewpoint had not "seemed good" to the
congregation, does this mean the group could have changed it? Did
the Spirit need the consensus of the church in order for the decision
to stand?! If the expression "seemed good" in v28
does not mean that the church had the right to ratify or veto the
decisions of the Holy Spirit, then the expressions used in vv 25,22
cannot mean that the church had the right to ratify or veto the
decisions of the apostles and elders! V28 proves conclusively what the
expression "seemed good" means in this context, and it
cannot possibly mean that the church had the right to ratify or veto
decisions!

5. Vv 22,25,28 mean only that the whole group was willing to
submit to the decisions of the leaders as being wise decisions.

As applied to the church, expressions such as "pleased"
and "seemed good" simply indicate that the church accepted
and submitted to the decision of their leaders. This is what
the expression means regarding the church's view of the Holy Spirit's
decision in v28, so this is what the expression likewise means in vv
22,25. It does not at all prove the church made the decision, or that
the decision would not have been binding if they were not
"pleased" by it.

In my illustration used above, if my family is "pleased"
by the decision to send my son to college, does that prove the whole
family actually made the decision? Or does it require only that the
leaders (parents) made the decision and the rest of the family
accepted it as a good decision?

6. Suppose the congregation had not been "pleased" with
the decisions of their God-ordained leaders. Would they have the
right to nullify the decisions?

Where does the New Testament ever say such a thing? I know of no
such passage. Those who hold such a view demonstrate beyond doubt that
they misunderstand the concept of authority.

Think about it. Here is a Bible example showing that the church was
"pleased" with the decisions of its leaders.
If that teaches anything, it teaches that the church ought to be satisfied
with the decisions of their leaders and submit to them. Yet folks take
a passage that teaches that church accepted and followed their leaders'
decision, then conclude that this authorizes them to not
be pleased with the leaders' decisions and so reject them as not
binding! Since when are we handling the word aright when we use a
Bible example to teach the very opposite of what it says? The whole
argument smells like a thinly disguised effort to justify rebellion!

However, I can find several Old Testament passages where the
congregation of God's people was not pleased with the
decisions of their God-ordained leaders and tried to nullify those
decisions. You can read about God's reaction in passages like
Numbers 12,13,14, and 16.

Where is there anything anywhere in the passage that says any woman spoke
out in any decision-making meeting? It simply is not there! Such
an idea is made up by human speculation in clear contradiction to other
passages we have studied.

Expressions such as "pleased" or "seemed good" do
not in any way prove that the people spoke out in a group
meeting. It simply means they recognized the decisions as good decisions
and were willing to abide by them. Activities in church worship
assemblies today often "please" and "seem good" to
the members, but not everyone speaks out at the time to
say so - especially not the women. The very idea that such expressions
require speaking out to the group is a figment of imagination.

The truth is that the Spirit determined the doctrinal aspects of the
decisions, the inspired men revealed them, the authorized leaders
discussed them and made the other necessary decisions to apply and carry
out the truth. They then presented these decisions to the congregation,
who accepted and submitted to the decisions of the Spirit and of the
church leaders. The end result was an arrangement that
"pleased" and "seemed good" to all involved. To
argue for anything more than this would go beyond the teaching of this
passage, violate the clear teaching of other passages, and show complete
misunderstanding of leadership.

Vv 30-32 - The letter received in Antioch

When they arrived at Antioch and the multitude had gathered together,
the men delivered the message from Jerusalem to the church at Antioch.
The church rejoiced as a result.

Contrary to claims some make, nothing says any decisions were made.
Jerusalem sent a letter, it was read to the Antioch church, and they
rejoiced in it.

Note Judas and Silas, the men sent from Jerusalem, then exhorted and
strengthened the brethren. No decisions here. This was a meeting to
instruct, exhort, and strengthen brethren.

Again as in 1 Corinthians 14, those who spoke to the whole
congregation were men. What verse or word shows that any women spoke out
to the group?

Acts 16:4 - The decrees of the apostles and elders delivered
elsewhere

As Paul and Barnabas traveled to other churches, they delivered the
decrees that had been determined by the apostles and elders. This is
exactly as we have stated. The decisions were determined by those who had
God-given authority to do so: not by the church as a whole, but by the
apostles and elders (in a private meeting, aside from the congregation,
according to Galatians 2). This passage confirms that, and nothing
anywhere disproves it.

Acts 6:1-6

Here again decisions were made on behalf of the church. Who made them?
The men who led the church, or the whole church, including women, in a
congregational meeting?

Vv 1-4 - The apostles' decisions

A problem arose about the care of needy widows in the Jerusalem
church. Decisions needed to be made to correct the matter. The twelve
apostles called together the multitude of the disciples and told them
that they themselves should emphasize prayer and teaching, not serving
tables (vv 2,4). So, the brethren should seek out from among them seven
men, with stated qualifications, whom the apostles would appoint over
the "business."

Before the congregation was called together, the apostles had
already made the basic decisions about what would be done!

They met with the congregation to inform the church of the
decisions that had been made and to instruct them to carry out those
decisions. But the decision about what should be done was made
by the apostles, the God-ordained leaders, before the congregation
ever met! The congregation did not meet to
"brainstorm" for a solution. The apostles did not ask for
suggestions from the group about what to do. The leaders had already
determined the solution. They did not ask permission from the group to
carry out their decision, They met to present their decision to the
group and then instructed the group to carry out the decision that had
already been made!

Specifically, the apostles had determined exactly how manymen were needed. This involved decisions even about matters of
judgment, made by the leaders of the congregation among themselves
before the congregation met. This is exactly what we saw in Galatians
2 and Acts 15.

And once again, this was a decision of apostles. Did
the congregation have the right to ratify or veto a decision that had
been made by apostles?

And once again every person involved in making the decisions was a man.
Not one woman participated in the making of these decisions.

The seven men appointed "over this business" would make
private decisions.

They were responsible to make the decisions about what widows would
be supported, in what form, how much, how often, etc. In short, they
made decisions in matters of judgment. Did every decision about every
dollar or every meal given to every widow have to be submitted for
ratification by the whole congregation of over 5000 men plus the women?

The whole point of being "over this business" meant that
these 7 men made the necessary decisions. These decisions were too much
for the apostles to handle and still do their other work, so how could
the whole church as a body make them? Any honest soul can see that the
men were appointed "over this business" so they could make the
necessary decisions on behalf of the church, not in meetings of the
whole church.

And note that the apostles specifically stated that those appointed
to supervise this work must be "men" - no women involved in
making these decisions!

Vv 4-6 - The church followed the apostles' instructions.

The whole multitude was "pleased" by the instructions the
apostles had given.

As in the discussion on Acts 15, this does not prove they had to
ratify the decision in order for it to be put in effect.

It simply shows they accepted the apostles' decision and
submitted to it. If the decision could not take effect till the whole
group gave its consensus, then this would give the congregation the
power to approve or veto a decision of apostles! Do we believe
in submitting to properly ordained leaders or not?

To be "pleased" refers to an attitude or state of mind,
which may not be expressed in words at all. I was "pleased"
when the White Sox chose Robin Ventura as a new manager. Does the mean
I was consulted or had any role whatever in making the decision? No,
it simply means that I liked the decision after it was made by those
who had the power to make it.

Here is a list of passages where the same Greek word is used to
refer to the fact that someone was pleased by a decision or choice
that someone else made, but the person who was "pleased" had
no part in the making of the choice itself: Acts 12:3; 1 Corinthians
10:33; Galatians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

Furthermore, where does the passage say anything about women
speaking out to the group or sharing equally with men in the
decisions made?

Surely women were present when the apostles gave instructions to
the church, but where does it say they spoke out? The apostles spoke
to the group. Did the women speak to the group? Where is the proof?

Specifically, most members are "pleased" by most of the
things that occur when the church meets. But this does not prove that
they all speak up and say so then and there! Are the women
"pleased" by what happens in our congregational worship? If
so, 1 Corinthians 14 forbids them from speaking up to saying so in the
assembly. Why then should we assume the women spoke in the assembly in
Acts 6?

We still have no passage showing women, with God's approval,
speaking out to a local church assembled either for worship or church
decision making.

Consider this act of choosing the seven men.

The apostles told the church to seek out seven qualified men to
supervise distribution to the needy (v3), so they (the group) chose
seven men who are named in v5. Note even so that it was the leaders, not
the people, who appointed these men to the work (vv 3,6).

This act of choosing was not a modern election in which women and men
voted on candidates for office. As with elders and deacons, the decision
was based on qualifications. Nor does the passage say the decision was
made right there in the public meeting. The instructions were given in
the meeting, but we are not told when, where, and how the final choice
was made. Whatever was done must harmonize with the teaching of other
passages, including those we have already studied.

Apparently, everyone was consulted regarding whether or not men were
qualified for the office before those men were appointed. Likewise, in
appointing elders and deacons today, everyone, including women, should
have an opportunity to indicate what they know about whether or not men
meet God's qualifications before those men are appointed. (If this is
not done, then if a man's wife or daughters know things that
disqualify him, how can they express this?)

There are many ways this can be done. Sometimes members are asked to
submit written statements. Or certain men may be appointed to whom the
members may go to express their views. To my knowledge, this has always
been the practice of local congregations in appointing elders or
deacons. But none of this requires a congregational meeting in which
women speak out to the group. And nothing says the women had equal say
with men in congregational decisions.

Summary

So, here we have a passage that some people claim proves decisions must
be made by the whole church and women must be involved in every decision.
Yet instead we have two clear examples of decisions being made by
God-ordained leaders apart from any gathering of the whole church. The
apostles decided the arrangement to meet the need of the widows, and the
seven men made the specific decisions regarding caring for the needy.

And once again the leadership roles in this event all belonged to men.
The apostles who chose the solution to the problem and the seven men
appointed to be in charge of the business, all were men.
Leadership roles in the church always belonged to men, never
to women. And nowhere does the passage say that women spoke in any church
decision meeting.

And as in Acts 15, the church was "pleased" with the
decisions of their authorized leaders. They submitted to the leaders'
decisions. Where is the verse that says the church had the right to be not
be pleased with the decisions of the leaders even to the point of
annulling or vetoing those decisions? How can verses saying the church was
pleased with the decisions of their leaders become verses that teach they
have the right to be displeased and reject the decisions!

Conclusion

Our study has proved the following conclusions:

* Women have an important role, but with Divine limitations.

* Women should be subject to men in Bible teaching and church decisions.

* People appointed to roles or offices for leading the whole church must
always be men.

* Women must not preach or take a leading role in church worship assemblies.

* Women must not lead any Bible study or act of worship in which men
participate.

* In church decisions, women's input may sometimes be solicited, but final
decisions must be made by men. No arrangement should involve the whole
congregation together, including women, in discussing or making decisions or
ratifying/vetoing leaders' decisions. Nor is there Scriptural authority for
women to participate jointly with the men in meetings to discuss and/or make
decisions for the church.

* Women must not speak out in any meeting when the whole church assembles as
a church.

Those who love and honor God will follow His pattern here as we do in all
other subjects.